What does "I accepted Christ as my savior" mean?

[yellowbird]

I think atheists view the person as their answer to “yes” when asked “Do you believe Jesus is God?” And then they will call them hypocrites the moment they catch the Christian sin.

Could be… I don’t have alot of personal experience with atheists, but I don’t doubt what you’re saying is true.

I like those bumper stickers… Christians aren’t perfect…they are just forgiven.

 

[allischalmers]

When someone asks my if I have accepted Jesus as my savior I answer NO , He accepted me so that he could be my savior

 

[yellowbird]

When someone asks my if I have accepted Jesus as my savior I answer NO , He accepted me so that he could be my savior

So do you believe the unsaved are such because Christ didn’t accept THEM?

I believe the Bible teaches that Jesus died for the whole world (John 3:16) and desires all to be saved. However He has given us free will to say yes or no to His call.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I don’t know about you, but I have often heard about how protestant reformers “threw the baby out with the bathwater” in regards to Catholic teaching. In this case, I think that some Catholics are throwing the baby out with the bathwater on a perfectly valid and beautiful statement.

As a Catholic, I have 100% accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. That does not mean that I believe He is solely my Lord and Savior and no one else’s. What it means is that I, personally, have accepted Jesus as my Savior. EVERY Christian should be able to say this statement comfortably. What appears to be happening is that Catholics are lumping the “personal Lord and Savior” statement in with a bunch of other protestant theology–once saved always saved, faith alone, etc. It is right and good to disagree with those doctrines because they are false. However, there is nothing wrong with professing that we, personally, have accepted the Lord as Savior. We each, personally, must accept the Father’s invitation (grace) which draws us to Christ (Jn 6:65).

Along the same lines, it is perfectly alright to claim to be born-again. Catholics (rightly) view being born again as outlined by Christ in the Bible-- we are born again of Spirit and water, rather than an emotional “alter call” experience. Still, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the statement "I’m a “born-again” Christian.

:clapping: I totally agree with you PW. EVERY christian should have a loving personal relationship with Jesus Christ - be they Catholic or non-Catholic. It is simply not an option to go without. Indeed, it is a good starting point to discuss those things we do not have in common with our separated brothers and sisters in Christ.

Peace,
-Robert.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

What does 'sure and certain" mean - to an evangelical?

I suppose it depends upon their faith tradition. For Catholics, it points to our certainty in Christ.
reen:

What connection is there - in terms of accepting Jesus
as one’s personal savior?

As between Jesus and the phrase “sure and certain” the connection is that Jesus is the sure and certain way to salvation. Jesus is the way.
reen:

What differentiates ‘sure and certain,’ from the presumption
of God’s mercy?

The virtue of hope. Sure and certain of salvation is tempered by the understanding that we, as free agents, can choose (despite the grace and love of God) to reject His promise and turn away. But it will never be Jesus that turns us away when we repent and seek His face.
reen:

If one accepts an ‘economy’ of grace - where grace is
spoken of as if it were a commodity ‘dispensed’ -

This is sophistry. The “economy of salvation” has nothing whatsoever to do with the economics. The term “economy” in this context is referring to God’s plan for our salvation. See here
reen:

I suppose the reality of ‘sure and certain’ would seem utterly puzzling,
to those members of ecclesial entities based on a sacramental system:

Then you misunderstand the Catholic Church. I beg to differ. The reality of “sure and certain” is quite clear to those who have the guidance and teaching of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Those who do not enjoy this blessing fall into error concerning what is real, and I fear that often the error hold eternal consequences.
reen:

God’s grace is a relational reality, for evangelicals -
not some’thing’ conveyed by ‘fonts.’
Grace one receives in astonishment… for it is amazing grace.
It is good news.

Catholic evangelicals agree with you on this. God’s grace is absolutely a relational reality. It is efficacious to those who are living in right relationship with Christ. However, not everyone who has a momentary spiritial awakening is guaranteed to remain in that relationship for eternity. It is certainly possible with faith. But the bible warns about believers who despite a real conversion, fall away from Christ and then face judgment.

“I have accepted Jesus as my personal savior.He has done the work of our salvation.
He is my justification before his father. He is my righteousness. In Him I am safe and saved.”

I agree with all of this, properly understood in the light of all of scripture and tradition. But I also believe that one who has presently “accepted” can later “reject” Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior - by their own turning away and not by anything Jesus did, or did not do. To me, this possibility is clear from scripture and the history of the Church.

“To Him be glory everlasting.”

Amen.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Pokedaughter]

We do not believe works are necessary to maintain salvation. We believe they come naturally due to our union with Christ. If a person claims to have faith yet their lives bear no fruit of the working of faith then they need to re-examine their relationship with God.

Exactly!

 

[Phillipos]

It seems to be a very popular protestant way of making Jesus Lord over your life.

 

[pismopal]

It seems to be a very popular protestant way of making Jesus Lord over your life.

It seems to me that making the above statement is a long way from doing…actually doing what it takes to make Christ the center of one’s life. Buzzwords do not a lifestyle make… IMHO.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

We do not believe works are necessary to maintain salvation. We believe they come naturally due to our union with Christ. If a person claims to have faith yet their lives bear no fruit of the working of faith then they need to re-examine their relationship with God.

Do you see how you are not being consistent here. You say first that works are not necessary for salvation; yet works must manifest in the life of a “saved” person. If they are not, then a person is to “re-examine” their relationship with Christ. In the first two instances, there is clearly an implicit (if not express) acknowledgement that works play a part in salvation - not as works in our own right but as works done “in Christ” - which is the Catholic position.

But I also find this last comment to be a bit contradictory. What you are saying is that all one needs is “faith” (apart from good works in Christ) BUT if your life in Christ is NOT manifesting good works a person needs to re-examin (i.e. “work on”) their relationship with Christ. In other words, faith without works is not saving faith. Whether they come together or one-after-the other, does this not compel the logical conclusion that works do play a role in salvation?

Believe me, I’m not being critical of your personal faith. The individual protestant’s faith in Jesus Christ is a beautiful thing. But where I see problems in protestant doctrine is where good works and (to a lesser extent) hope and charity are jettisoned as mere afterthoughts unrelated to one’s personal salvation. I think - with deepest respect to my protestant brothers and sisters for their faith - that they miss something when they fail to see the connection between faith and works in one’s salvation. Faith ceases to be relational and familial, instead becoming legalistic and rigid. The danger in the doctrine is that one can conclude they must have faith for a moment but can then “backslide” into heaven because Jesus paid the whole penalty. That’s not the way it works in a loving family. And so it is not the way it works in the loving family of God.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

But I also find this last comment to be a bit contradictory. What you are saying is that all one needs is “faith” (apart from good works in Christ) BUT if your life in Christ is NOT manifesting good works a person needs to re-examin (i.e. “work on”) their relationship with Christ. In other words, faith without works is not saving faith. Whether they come together or one-after-the other, does this not compel the logical conclusion that works do play a role in salvation?

The point can appear a minor one precisely because of you brought up: the practical implication is that a person who claims faith but bears no fruit is not saved. However, that does not imply a direct casual relationship between works and salvation. Rather, the Protestant perspective is that salvation and works are both consequences of faith. Doing the will of God is a necessary response to an authentic faith in God in the same sense that a ball falling to the ground when released is a necessary consequence of gravity. Thus, a lack of works indicates that someone is not saved not because works are necessary for salvation, but because a lack of works points to an inauthentic faith, and without an authentic faith we cannot receive the free gift of salvation.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The point can appear a minor one precisely because of you brought up: the practical implication is that a person who claims faith but bears no fruit is not saved. However, that does not imply a direct casual relationship between works and salvation.

I disagree. I think that a causal connection *is *strongly inferred by the scriptures, especially what is written in James. Does the letter not say that Faith apart from good works is dead. How does this statement not imply that good works are a necessary response to the gift of God’s saving grace, i.e. to keep one’s faith alive.
a_mirror-darkly:

Rather, the Protestant perspective is that salvation and works are both consequences of faith. Doing the will of God is a necessary response [emphasis added] to an authentic faith in God in the same sense that a ball falling to the ground when released is a necessary consequence of gravity.

I think you are conceding a point here when you use the word “necessary.” I agree that works are a necessary part of faith. And I agree that works are the proper *response *to an authentic faith. But to follow your analogy, it is also true that a ball that ceases to fall is no longer subject to gravity. In the same way… a person who ceases His good works will cease their movement towards God. Unlike balls, we can exercise free will to fight gravity and stop our movement.
a_mirror_darkly:

Thus, a lack of works indicates that someone is not saved not because works are necessary for salvation, but because a lack of works points to an inauthentic faith, and without an authentic faith we cannot receive the free gift of salvation.

Do you not see the problem here as well. You say good works are the “necessary response” of “saving faith” just above this point, but then you say works are not necessary. You have already conceded that faith and salvation are both received by grace. Are we just arguing semantics over works here? Is it your point that the human free will plays NO PART in salvation. Because it seems to me that’s what this argument boils down to when discussed rationally among people of good faith.

Thanks for the response. It is much appreciated.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

I disagree. I think that a causal connection *is *strongly inferred by the scriptures, especially what is written in James. Does the letter not say that Faith apart from good works is dead. How does this statement not imply that good works are a necessary response to the gift of God’s saving grace, i.e. to keep one’s faith alive.

I think you are conceding a point here when you use the word “necessary.” I agree that works are a necessary part of faith. And I agree that works are the proper *response *to an authentic faith. But to follow your analogy, it is also true that a ball that ceases to fall is no longer subject to gravity. In the same way… a person who ceases His good works will cease their movement towards God. Unlike balls, we can exercise free will to fight gravity and stop our movement.

Do you not see the problem here as well. You say good works are the “necessary response” of “saving faith” just above this point, but then you say works are not necessary. You have already conceded that faith and salvation are both received by grace. Are we just arguing semantics over works here? Is it your point that the human free will plays NO PART in salvation. Because it seems to me that’s what this argument boils down to when discussed rationally among people of good faith.

Thanks for the response. It is much appreciated.

Peace,
-Robert

I believe I may be responsible for some confusion of my belief due to the ambiguous way is which I used the word necessary in my response. When I used it in my response I meant it not as a moral imperative (e.g. it is necessary that you honor your parents) but rather as a logical imperative (e.g. it is necessary that 2 + 2 adds up to 4). Works are not an actor in or a prerequisite of salvation, they are however a guaranteed consequent of an authentic faith, and an authentic faith IS necessary and sufficient to receive the gift of salvation.

So when it is said “faith without works is dead” that does not mean that works play a role in our salvation, but merely that they are outward evidence of an authentic faith, a faith which is critical to our salvation. Is that explanation any clearer?

 

[Pokedaughter]

"Do you not see the problem here as well. You say good works are the “necessary response” of “saving faith” just above this point, but then you say works are not necessary. You have already conceded that faith and salvation are both received by grace. Are we just arguing semantics over works here? Is it your point that the human free will plays NO PART in salvation. Because it seems to me that’s what this argument boils down to when discussed rationally among people of good faith.

Thanks for the response. It is much appreciated.

Peace,
-Robert"

This scripture might offer some clarity in the confusion regarding this issue:

Ephesians2:8-10 states:

“8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

What I think Paul is saying is that we can’t work our way into heaven hence the phrase: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9*not of works,…"
However I think people can unintentionally interpret the scripture into thinking that by doing good works we “earn” salvation when only looking at the scripture in part such as: “…created in Christ Jesus unto good works”

Therefore the theological debate is:

Does one earn salvation through good works or
Is good works a product of one being “saved”?

(This is definitely a great topic of debate which might need a new thread. lol.)

 

[reen12]

We do not believe works are necessary to maintain salvation. We believe they come naturally due to our union with Christ. If a person claims to have faith yet their lives bear no fruit of the working of faith then they need to re-examine their relationship with God.

May I ask how the following is then understood?

“…work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” [Philipians[/COLOR] 2]

Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
So by their fruits you will know them. Not everyone who says to me,
‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who
does the will of my Father in heaven. [Matt. 7]

…Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them
will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. [Matt. 7]

Thank you,

reen12

 

[Pokedaughter]

May I ask how the following is then understood?

“…work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” [Philipians[/COLOR] 2]

Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
So by their fruits you will know them. Not everyone who says to me,
‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who
does the will of my Father in heaven. [Matt. 7]

…Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them
will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. [Matt. 7]

Thank you,

reen12

 

[YipYupYep]

For many Protestants (notice not all), “being saved” or accepting Jesus Christ as their “personal Savior” stems from a dramatic one time event/QUOTE]

Its my understanding that having made the statement, your in. Your SAVED in there way of interpreting the Bible.

No purgatory, good works or no good works, its by grace alone. Everyone else that ever has lived or will live shall go to hell unless they except Christ into there heart as there personal savior. Just them, no one else. That would include people who never had the opportunity to know the Gospel. Thats the part that gets to me. How could a Christian believe a thing like that.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

This scripture might offer some clarity in the confusion regarding this issue:

Ephesians2:8-10 states:

“8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

What I think Paul is saying is that we can’t work our way into heaven hence the phrase: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9*not of works,…"
However I think people can unintentionally interpret the scripture into thinking that by doing good works we “earn” salvation when only looking at the scripture in part such as: “…created in Christ Jesus unto good works”

Doing good works without having faith in Christ is just as useless for getting to Heaven as having faith without doing good works. Not works of the Law, but the good works that God has “before ordained that we should walk in them.” They are two sides of the same proverbial coin. If you read the “Hall of Faith” in Hebrews 11, you’ll notice that it says, “By faith…” that person then DID something. It was their faith that prompted their actions. If your faith doesn’t prompt you to do something for the glory of God and the sake of the Gospel, you’re no better than the demons who “believe and tremble.”

 

[Pokedaughter]

Doing good works without having faith in Christ is just as useless for getting to Heaven as having faith without doing good works. Not works of the Law, but the good works that God has “before ordained that we should walk in them.” They are two sides of the same proverbial coin. If you read the “Hall of Faith” in Hebrews 11, you’ll notice that it says, “By faith…” that person then DID something. It was their faith that prompted their actions. If your faith doesn’t prompt you to do something for the glory of God and the sake of the Gospel, you’re no better than the demons who “believe and tremble.”

I completely agree.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I completely agree.

Glad to hear it. What I outlined above is exactly what the Catholic Church has always taught.

 

[Annie_B]

Only the “sinners Prayer” is not in the bible and won’t save you. It’s only been practiced less than 50 years…

Just because a prayer is not found in the Bible does not automatically make it invalid…MANY “Catholic” prayers are not found in the Bible…Prayer - from any faith/church does not “save” you; That is GOD’s job

Annie