Personal relationship with Jesus

[melchesidechpio]

Being in the south and surrounded by Baptists of all kinds, Southern, Indepenendant, and even “Bible based” I am constantly asked if I have a personal relationship with Jesus. Since they are “sola scriptura” I ask for them to show me the passage in the Bible that relates to this(Baptist minister was dumbfounded that a Catholic actually knew and reads the Bible) I always come back “Where two or three are gathered in my name,I will be there”

Thoughts?

Bob

Having a personal relationship with Jesus goes beyond scripture, having a prayerful spirit and living the Gospel among other things. Praying and listening at Adoration helps one establish a relationship with Christ.

 

[rdscheirer]

Years ago my wife became friends with the wife of a Baptist minister (Southerrn Baptist) who had a small church. . He want’d to be a pastor of a big church but he needed to get his PHD in theology from the baptists to be able to be a pastor. I am so glad that being a RCatholic that I don’t have to worry about whether my Pastor has been vetted.

 

[wmscott]

Being in the south and surrounded by Baptists of all kinds, Southern, Indepenendant, and even “Bible based” I am constantly asked if I have a personal relationship with Jesus. Since they are “sola scriptura” I ask for them to show me the passage in the Bible that relates to this(Baptist minister was dumbfounded that a Catholic actually knew and reads the Bible) I always come back “Where two or three are gathered in my name,I will be there”

Thoughts?

Bob

My answer is always yes. Yes because every time I attend Mass I receive Him Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist. Yes because every time I avail myself to the Sacraments, my personal relationship with Christ is that much more strengthened. And yes as the Sacraments are Biblical.

 

[Church_Militant]

I can relate as well, living here in the “redneck riviera”.

Tell 'em certainly, that you receive Our Lord Jesus Christ every time you go to Mass and Communion.

This article from my blog might give you some good ammo. The Eucharist IS Scriptural

CA has a couple of very good articles in its Faith Tracts called

• Are Catholics Born Again
• Assurance of Salvation?

God’s peace

 

[squain]

Can anyone help me to understand why the protestant idea that salvation is achieved by “faith alone” is incorrect in light of Luke 23:40-43:

39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”

40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

I have heard evangelical protestants who believe in “faith alone” claim that, like the criminal next to Christ, all that we must do to achieve salvation is 1. offer a one time repentance for our sins and 2. have faith in Him as our savior.

Can anyone help?

 

[Salvatore123]

First, Dismas (the name given to the “good thief” in apocryphal gospels) did more than just have faith - he actually reproached the other thief next to Christ and then asked Christ to simply remember him.

Second, Christ did not promise Dismas he would be in heaven - as protestants mistakenly believe. Christ promised him he would be with him in “paradise”, which is referred to as “purgatory” or “limbo of the just” (depending on which time period a particular commentary was written about this passage).

Third, if the protestant attempts to refute the purgatory argument by claiming that paradise meant heaven, ask that protestant, “How can it be that Christ and Dismas went to heaven THAT DAY, when days later, as he appeared to Mary Magdalene and she approached him, he told her to not touch him as he had not yet ascended to his father in heaven?”

Of course, as Georgia alluded to in an earlier post, fundamentalists (especially Southern Baptists - I know first hand, as I married one - she converted on her own) have drilled into them at an early age, certain biblical quotes that they can repeat from rote memory, but they almost always lack context to the quotes, and can almost never explain what they just quoted, except in a perfunctory sense.

In sum, I see reproaching a fellow robber in front of those who have just nailed you to a cross, and then, while in excruciating agony, asking Christ to simply remember him, is quite a bit more than just “having faith”

 

[Church_Militant]

What they fail to tell you is that St. Dismas was saved under the Old Testament because Our Lord had not yet died on the cross at that point.

This rock’s quick questions says:

Q:“
**Is the story of the good thief in Luke 23:39–43 proof that baptism isn’t necessary? **
”

   			 				A: 			
  	First, it isn’t clear that baptism had yet been mandated by Jesus  before he met the thief. If it had been, we do not know for certain that  the thief hadn’t already been baptized. In any case, the thief clearly  underwent a conversion at some point during his crucifixion, and it  seems evident that he would have desired baptism before his death had he  known of its necessity. That would have been sufficient, because the  Church recognizes that, in such a case, the desire for baptism brings  about the fruits of baptism (CCC 1258).

You can find several articles explaining why we do not accept Sola Fide. Keep in mind that that doctrine has only existed a mere 500 years.
God bless,

 

[brb3]

Second, Christ did not promise Dismas he would be in heaven - as protestants mistakenly believe. Christ promised him he would be with him in “paradise”, which is referred to as “purgatory” or “limbo of the just” (depending on which time period a particular commentary was written about this passage).

Third, if the protestant attempts to refute the purgatory argument by claiming that paradise meant heaven, ask that protestant, “How can it be that Christ and Dismas went to heaven THAT DAY, when days later, as he appeared to Mary Magdalene and she approached him, he told her to not touch him as he had not yet ascended to his father in heaven?”

In sum, I see reproaching a fellow robber in front of those who have just nailed you to a cross, and then, while in excruciating agony, asking Christ to simply remember him, is quite a bit more than just “having faith”

Well … it was a FAITH that led to REPENTANCE and PUBLIC CONFESSION. That is all that is required for anyone to receive grace and FULL forgivenss of ‘past’ sins.

I don’t know how you see Dismas was in need of Purgatory that day. He was promised Paradise by Christ. If Paradise = Purgatory … then we Catholics have got a problem with words/meanings …

 

[Salvatore123]

brb3,

From A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture: “In the apocryphal goaspels the Good Thief is called Dismas. ‘Paradise’ signified for the Jews the abode of the blessed. Here, if taken literally to its context, it signifies primarily the limbo of the just to which Christ’s soul was presently to descend.”

We know that Christ’s soul descended to purgatory after dying to preach the good news to the “captive souls” that Heaven had been opened again because of his redemptive death. These souls would have included those of Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, King David, etc.

 

[thequeen]

I receive Christ every time I receive the Holy Eucharist you can’t get any more personal than that.

 

[Tomb54]

brb3,

From A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture: “In the apocryphal goaspels the Good Thief is called Dismas. ‘Paradise’ signified for the Jews the abode of the blessed. Here, if taken literally to its context, it signifies primarily the limbo of the just to which Christ’s soul was presently to descend.”

We know that Christ’s soul descended to purgatory after dying to preach the good news to the “captive souls” that Heaven had been opened again because of his redemptive death. These souls would have included those of Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, King David, etc.

Or I think it could be called Abraham’s bosom which is where Jesus said the Dead went to before He redeemed those of the OT and opened the gates of heaven so Paradise= Abraham’s Bosom
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell."

• Luke 16,22

 

[Salvatore123]

Tomb,

Exactly - another phrase/term referring to the same “place” or status of one’s soul.

Paradise was definitely NOT heaven . . . at least in the context in which Jesus used the word “paradise” while on the cross.

 

[brb3]

…could be called Abraham’s bosom which is where Jesus said the Dead went

That’s Paradise, … not Purgatory !!! You got it Tomb54 !!!

 

[Salvatore123]

Although it has never been definitively taught, the following is what I meant when I said that paradise did NOT mean heaven. Whether “purgatory” or “limbo of the fathers” is/was the same, is discussed in the following article that was published on this website several years ago:

"It is no wonder, then, that those who deny the existence of purgatory tend to touch upon only briefly the history of the belief. They prefer to claim that the Bible speaks only of heaven and hell. Wrong. It speaks plainly of a third condition, commonly called the limbo of the Fathers, where the just who had died before the redemption were waiting for heaven to be opened to them. After his death and before his resurrection, Christ visited those experiencing the limbo of the Fathers and preached to them the good news that heaven would now be opened to them (1 Pet. 3:19). These people thus were not in heaven, but neither were they experiencing the torments of hell.

“Some have speculated that the limbo of the Fathers is the same as purgatory. This may or may not be the case. However, even if the limbo of the Fathers is not purgatory, its existence shows that a temporary, intermediate state is not contrary to Scripture. Look at it this way. If the limbo of the Fathers was purgatory, then this one verse directly teaches the existence of purgatory. If the limbo of the Fathers was a different temporary state, then the Bible at least says such a state can exist. It proves there can be more than just heaven and hell.”

 

[brb3]

the Bible speaks only of heaven and hell. Wrong. It speaks plainly of a third condition, commonly called the limbo of the Fathers, where the just who had died before the redemption were waiting for heaven to be opened to them. After his death and before his resurrection, Christ visited those experiencing the limbo of the Fathers and preached to them the good news that heaven would now be opened to them (1 Pet. 3:19). These people thus were not in heaven, but neither were they experiencing the torments of hell.

"Some have speculated that the limbo of the Fathers is the same as purgatory. "

Yes, ‘speculation’ !! Limbo of the Father’s was just that. Limbo ‘of the Old Testament’ Fathers.

Now, we are in a new age, NT Church, Kingdom age. Calvary has occurred, the King and Kingdom have come … we have the full indwelling H.S. available to us. Is there still a need for Limbo ? Is Purgatory still a viable concept … taught by Christ, taught in scriptures ? All those IN CHRIST, are fully forgiven of all past sins, and currently forgiven of all post-conversion sins … provided we daily avail ourselves to ‘private’ confession of them, and annually [at minimum], go before priest and confess them.

We have the Church, we have the Eucharist, we have all the Sacraments needed to fully prepare us for the next life. Why would we in NT time need a Limbo [or a Purgatory equivalent ] ?

I don’t see it. But, I could be wrong.

 

[Salvatore123]

brb3,

Purgatory is a dogma we are bound, as Catholics, to believe.

It is not optional . . .

If purgatory does not exist, and you die suddenly in an accident before you have a chance to confess your venial sins, where do you go?

Revelation says that nothing unclean can enter heaven.

Maccabees, 1 Peter, Tradition - they all point to a “place” or “state” other than heaven and hell.

Believing that we are forgiven for all of our sins without having confessed them first is akin to “once saved, always saved”. Is THAT what we Catholics are taught to believe? Is that what you really believe? I don’t think you do . . .

 

[Cruciform]

Being in the south and surrounded by Baptists of all kinds, Southern, Indepenendant, and even “Bible based” I am constantly asked if I have a personal relationship with Jesus. Since they are “sola scriptura” I ask for them to show me the passage in the Bible that relates to this(Baptist minister was dumbfounded that a Catholic actually knew and reads the Bible) I always come back “Where two or three are gathered in my name,I will be there.” Thoughts?

In fact, the Catholic Church was affirming the believer’s “personal relationship with God (Jesus)” for fifteen-hundred years before a single Protestant ever came on the scene. See, for example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church 299 and 2565.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[bogeydogg]

Being in the south and surrounded by Baptists of all kinds, Southern, Indepenendant, and even “Bible based” I am constantly asked if I have a personal relationship with Jesus. Since they are “sola scriptura” I ask for them to show me the passage in the Bible that relates to this(Baptist minister was dumbfounded that a Catholic actually knew and reads the Bible) I always come back “Where two or three are gathered in my name,I will be there”

Thoughts?

Bob

Here’s the thing abou that verse. Read it in context and you will se that what the Lord is speaking about is discipline.

Matthew 18 15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

Now if this verse is about a “personal relationship” then why does Jesus remind them that the authority being sought here by His presence has to do with the binding and loosing of sin?

This verse has nothing at all to do with relating to God, it has to do with the Church and its authority to forgive sin. In the same way that the Torah commands that two or three witnesses be given to ensure the guilt of a condemned man, so also thew testimony of two or three witnesses who can bind or loose sin may a man be put out of communion with Christ due to his lack of repentance.

Now if your friends wish to know where they can have a “pesonal relationship” with Christ then you can refer them to

Matthew 26 : 26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

and Luke 19 : 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Isn’t it strange that our Lord specifically commanded us to “eat His body” and “drink His blood” and that we should do this “in remembrance of me” and those who claim a personal relationship with Jesus will argue this is the very thing you should NOT do?

Just a thought

God Bless

 

[brb3]

brb3,

Purgatory is a dogma we are bound, as Catholics, to believe.

Believing that we are forgiven for all of our sins without having confessed them first is akin to “once saved, always saved”. . .

Purgatory is not about being ‘forgiven’ of sins,… & confession is only an option for us in this life. So other Catholics have stated here on CAF.

 

[Tomb54]

I was going to go further into this (purgatory) but I figured it was off topic so I will save it for another time.