Where do protestants get "Personal Lord and Savior?" What is the origin of this phrase?

[PJM]

=DavidFilmer;6720292]Protestants often use the phrase, “Personal Lord and Savior.” Search engines report many millions of instances of this phrase.

Yet, the word “personal” does not occur in the New Testament, in any translation that I know of (surely not the protestant standards of the KJV and RSV, which I have checked).

So this is absolutely NOT a Biblical expression. Yet it is widely used across many protestant denominations (who cling to Sola Scriptura).

What is the origin of this phrase? It didn’t come from the Bible. How did it enter the broad protestant theological lexicon?

Does anybody know?

Like OSAS, Sola Scriptura and other man made innovations; this term is an attempt to at the same time; deny Mother Church, and make a convert to a man made religion.

That said: I persoanlly like the expression as it recoginizes the need to not just acknowledge God; but be subject to Him, which requires “knowing Him.”

The difference between Catholic relationship and non-Catholic relationship, is that Catholics perception of God is a “complete” God of Love, Mercy, Justice and fairness.

While non-catrholics hold to a God who is ONLY Merciful and loving; not biblical; not even really God, who cannot and does not change.

Love and prayers,

 

[JonNC]

The difference between Catholic relationship and non-Catholic relationship, is that Catholics perception of God is a “complete” God of Love, Mercy, Justice and fairness.

While non-catrholics hold to a God who is ONLY Merciful and loving; not biblical; not even really God, who cannot and does not change.

Love and prayers,

Which non-Catholics, because Lutherans are quite aware of God’s justice and fairness.

Jon

 

[CWBetts]

not biblical; not even really God, who cannot and does not change.

Love and prayers,

God does not change. He is pure act.

 

[PJM]

=JonNC;6758725]Which non-Catholics, because Lutherans are quite aware of God’s justice and fairness.

Jon

Any and all who accept OSAS, or Sola Scriptura

 

[clmowry]

Which non-Catholics, because Lutherans are quite aware of God’s justice and fairness.

Jon

Pick a non-Catholic, any non-Catholic.

But seriously, we probably shouldn’t attribute any belief to the broad group of non-Catholic Christians.

We’d be hard pressed to find anything we could claim that all of the sects that call themselves Christian believe.

I think it is true, however, that “some” non-Catholics believe that God’s “justice and fairness” consists of their being free to do pretty much whatever they like once they’ve “accepted Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.” Hopefully this is a very small percentage of the non-Catholic population.

A boat captain when I was taking an offshore sailing class with my wife was of this ilk.

His non-denominational Church taught him [or at least that is what he claimed] precisely that. He knew that it was true because his Church had the Holy Spirit because everyone in the Church can speak in tongues and if you can’t speak in tongues, well then you just aren’t saved.

So at least I understood why this fellow who insisted that I needed to “accept Jesus” and get out of Satan’s church thought it was ok that he [a married man] spend the night with a waitress he picked up in Galveston.

Chuck

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Protestants often use the phrase, “Personal Lord and Savior.” Search engines report many millions of instances of this phrase.

What is the origin of this phrase? It didn’t come from the Bible. How did it enter the broad protestant theological lexicon?

Does anybody know?

From the few posts I’ve read in this thread, it seems most people want to criticize the phrase rather than answer your questions, “Where did it come from?” “Does anyone know?”

Well, I don’t know either, so I might as well throw in my 2 cents.

As a Protestant Evangelical, I’m equally curious. I’m also equally troubled by the expression because it smacks of an overblown concept of American individualism coupled with cheesy marketing techniques.

A “personal savior” sounds portable–someone who fits comfortably into one’s everyday life–like having a Jesus app for your smart phone. Imagine the reaction of those who first heard the words, “unless you deny yourself and take up your cross daily you can’t be my disciple.” The “personal savior” crowd hears those words and says, “wow, that’s tough stuff, lets go to Starbucks and get a latte.”

Jesus defines the terms of the “personal relationship” with him. And that relationship requires the willingness to go to one’s death. I don’t like the language of “personal savior” and “personal relationship” any more than you guys do.

But I am also appalled by the “critical mass” of Catholics in any given parish (that I’ve been to, anyway) who seem to have no concept of being in relationship to Christ at any level. For many of these, Jesus seems to be only an “impersonal savior.”

 

[Phil12123]

I couldn’t speak to the origin of the phrase, “Personal Lord and Savior,” but after being in Protestant, Evangelical circles for 20 years and then returning to Catholicism I can say this much: The phrase is primarily used as an appeal to be in relationship with Christ rather than to simply be “religious.”

To the unchurched, the phrase is a short way of saying, “Hey, did you know that God is not just some distant higher power? You can actually KNOW Him, and He is Jesus Christ!”

To the churched, the phrase is used as a short way of saying, "You can’t just go through the motions of your religion (Protestant or Catholic) and expect to be saved. You have to KNOW Jesus, not simply know ABOUT Jesus. In other words, is Jesus YOUR Lord and Savior, or are you in church by default because Jesus was the Lord and Savior of some ancestor or family member of yours? Another way of saying it would be that you can’t get saved by riding into Heaven on the coat tails of your parents. YOU PERSONALLY have to be converted.

The phrase is particularly directed at Catholics because of the liturgical nature of our worship which, to many outsiders, seems full of “religion” but void of “relationship.” Of course, this is a misconception partly fueled by a large percentage of Catholics who don’t know their faith, are in church only because they were brought up Catholic, and who can’t respond adequately when asked the question, "If you died today, would you go to Heaven or to Hell? When Catholics answer with something like, “Umm…I hope I would go to heaven…” the Evangelical responds, “Wow, you must have only “religion” without a “personal relationship,” because if you really KNEW Jesus you would know that you are on your way to Heaven!” Many, many Catholics are drawn away from the Church and into Evangelical Protestantism because of this. They don’t know their own faith well enough to realize that there is no better way than Catholicism to know Christ personally.

Of all the answers given in this thread, I think this one is the best and most accurate in answering the question, although I would disagree with the last 11 words of the post.

Yes, “personal Lord and Savior” is not per se in the Bible. But just as “Trinity” is not in the Bible, the concept is. The way I would explain it is this: 1 John 4:14 says, “Moreover, we have seen and testify that the Father sent his Son as savior of the world.” And the most familiar verse, John 3:16, says, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.” So, God the Father loved the world so much that He sent His only son, Jesus, as “savior of the world.” But how does the world get saved? One individual person at a time, or maybe 3,000 at a time, like on the day of Pentecost, but even then each individual person had to do what it took to be saved and have Jesus as that individual’s Savior and Lord. Each person had to “personalize” the salvation offered by the Savior and apply it to himself personally. Savior of the world, yes, but then savior of the individual, thereby making it personal for that individual, hence, that person’s personal Savior and Lord. John 3:16 says to do that the individual “who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.” Or John 1:11-12 says, “He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him. But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name.” So, the extended plea would be for everyone to “accept Jesus as your own personal Lord and Savior.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

Phil,

It just goes to show that everything that Christians need to believe doesn’t have to be in the Bible (as long as it consist with orthodox Christian belief) since a lot of Non-Catholic Christians often criticized Catholics of so-called “unbiblical” (not in Scripture) doctrines of the faith.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

I don’t think the formulation was intended as a slam against Catholics, or even with Catholics much in mind.

A lot of the adult Evangelicals I grew up among were escapees from the drearier mainline denominations whose laxity and lukewarmness were a cause of lifelong resentment for them. I gather that at the time the phrase “personal Lord and Saviour” was coined, a lot of sap had run out of mainstream American Christianity, and Evangelicals were trying to call attention to the reality of God–that He was not just a vague presence attached to the church that the members reluctantly filled on Sunday, but a loving Father who had an interest and a claim on the individual believer. The phrase was intended as a way of waking certain Christians up to an aspect of God that had become no longer obvious to them.

 

[Phil12123]

Phil,

It just goes to show that everything that Christians need to believe doesn’t have to be in the Bible (as long as it’s consist with orthodox Christian belief) since a lot of Non-Catholic Christians often criticized Catholics of so-called “unbiblical” (not in Scripture) doctrines of the faith.

I agree with you, with the following caveats. First, as I said, the words used may not be in the Bible but as long as the concept or teaching that is captured by the words is in the Bible, it passes biblical muster. Secondly, we know and believe (1) that the N.T. writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit and (2) that the Holy Spirit would not contradict Himself by supposedly inspiring or leading someone to later write or insist on our believing something that contradicts those Spirit-inspired N.T. writings. For example, the Holy Spirit inspired the Gospel writers to write that Jesus died on the cross, was buried, and rose again. Therefore, when there is later written in the Qur’an that Jesus did NOT die on the cross but someone else died in his place and God rescued him from death on the cross by taking him to heaven, we KNOW that that is NOT inspired by God the Holy Spirit since it outright contradicts what the Spirit-inspired N.T. writings say. I think we are all in agreement so far.

Now, as to your reference to “so-called ‘unbiblical’ (not in Scripture) doctrines of the faith” I would say that most of those would find their source in so-called “Tradition” rather than “Sacred Scripture.” But I would maintain that if those doctrines are of God and therefore true, they would not contradict Sacred Scripture either, since the latter would have predated anything promulgated after the last N.T. writer laid his pen (or writing instrument) down. That is not to say that there can be no later development of doctrine but it would have to be consistent with what we know to be previously inspired by God. That might include the subject of this thread, “accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior.” Those words may be new to Sacred Scripture but they don’t really contradict it.

What, however, about doctrines like purgatory, indulgences, temporal punishment for sins forgiven before death that occurs after death, and the assumption of Mary. The biblical support for any of those is slim to none. The next question would be, do they contradict what Sacred Scripture does say on those subjects? If not, perhaps they can be an addition or a development of doctrine. However, this thread is not the place to answer that question, so I will leave it at that.

 

[Mannyfit75]

What, however, about doctrines like purgatory, indulgences, temporal punishment for sins forgiven before death that occurs after death, and the assumption of Mary. The biblical support for any of those is slim to none. The next question would be, do they contradict what Sacred Scripture does say on those subjects? If not, perhaps they can be an addition or a development of doctrine. However, this thread is not the place to answer that question, so I will leave it at that.

Actually, they are implied according to Catholic POV.

Purgatory, in Philippians, mentioned that in Jesus Name, every knee shall bend, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, on earth, in heaven, and under the earth. Under the earth is purgatory.

Indulgence is given from binding and losing based of Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:18, and Assumption of Mary is implied in Revelation 12:1-5. There a woman clothed with the sun appears in heaven. The woman have a crown her head. She also gave birth to a male-child who will rule the world with an iron rode. The male-child is Jesus. The mother of Jesus is Mary. I only address this because you posted it in your posts. I doubt you are convince by those arguments. I made. Our view is Word of God is transmitted in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial Teaching, who along interprets authencity orthodox teaching on Christian dogmas.

You got your definition of indulgence wrong:

It is actually, “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church’s help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints”

You might want to look at this on Indulgence. It separate myth from fact:

catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp

 

[FanChan]

I thought I would offer an alternative view to where the ‘personal’ aspect of non-Catholic Christianity came from. I’m not sure how many of you know who George Whitefield is, but he was a wildly famous preacher during the formative years of America before the Revolution. He was one of the first Christians to really give rise to the thought that God can be personal.

This requires a history lesson, and I’ll be brief due to my own limited knowledge on the man and this portion of history. The Church of England was the major contender of Protestantism of the day, but it wasn’t just a religion. It was connected to government, a complete way of life. God’s relationship was to the king, to Parliament, and they to the people. God was a distant ‘thing’ to the average person, something unreachable, another facet of the tyranny they were living under. This worked very much to the government’s advantage. If God’s relationship was with the government, then it was from the government that people received their rights.

But what if God’s relationship was to the individual? What if we received our rights directly from God, and didn’t have to have the filter of government between us? It was a revolutionary idea, and it was the foundation of the United States. It’s a concept I hope Protestants never forget, and never let us forget.

George Whitefield was hated by the Church of England, and he eventually came over to America, giving sermons to tens of thousands of people at a time, for years, to the point that it was said he’d given a sermon to every person in colonial America. The message he spread was that God was personal, then faith and religion was something you could FEEL, not just something you go through the motions with. This revelation that we can have a direct line to God, that we can have a personal relationship with Him, was what inspired our Revolution and the great American Experiment.

Did he coin the term ‘personal relationship with Jesus Christ’? I dunno. Maybe, probably not, but the concept that’s held so dear to American Protestantism is most definitely something that came from him, and from that time.

 

[EDWARDJL]

I think it attempts to emphasize that you need a “personal” relationship with Christ. The individual needs to make the decision to believe in Christ as Lord and Savior. Part of making Jesus Lord is to follow-him daily in prayer, Bible reading and obedience.

I think this emphasis on a real and personal relationship is where this saying comes from.

 

[crazzeto]

I think it attempts to emphasize that you need a “personal” relationship with Christ. The individual needs to make the decision to believe in Christ as Lord and Savior. Part of making Jesus Lord is to follow-him daily in prayer, Bible reading and obedience.

I think this emphasis on a real and personal relationship is where this saying comes from.

I generally agree with what you just posted… I own personal issues with this “doctrine” is when this tradition of man (over emphisis of this notion) does in fact begin negating the clear teachings of Christ. For instance I know some folks who are very well meaninged, but would sharply disagree with your comment that there is any call for any “obedience” of any kind, excepting perhaps to “the bible”.

This is the type of person who believe they’re “saved” because they said a certain prayer at one point in their life, and that this one prayer is totally sufficient to cover anything they ever have or ever will do in their life which would be offensive to God no matter how great or small. This is highly problematic, also problematic is when people start denying the clear necessity of the sacraments.

But yes, I do aboslutly agree with your post making up the good core starting place of a healthy faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Phil12123]

Actually, they are implied according to Catholic POV.

Purgatory, in Philippians, mentioned that in Jesus Name, every knee shall bend, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, on earth, in heaven, and under the earth. Under the earth is purgatory.

I don’t think you find purgatory in those three words, “under the earth.” In context, Paul was emphasizing that every knee of everyone everywhere will bend to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. If you Google “Bible commentaries Philippians” you will find several good commentaries that expound on Phil 2:10 and none of them come up with purgatory. Here are three such expositions of that verse:

“The wording of these verses is meant to emphasize all-inclusive acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord i.e. all people everywhere. Even those who rejected Jesus Christ here on earth will be forced to acknowledge him at the white throne judgment found in Revelation 20:11-15.” Source: bibletrack.org/cgi-bin/bible.pl?dy=12&mo=10

“The beings in heaven that Paul referred to evidently are believers who have died and whose spirits have gone into the Lord’s presence. Those on earth are people still alive on the earth. Those under the earth are unbelievers awaiting resurrection. Hades (the same as Sheol, the Old Testament term) is the place where the spirits of the unbelieving dead go until God resurrects them and judges them. The ancients thought of Sheol or Hades as being under the surface of the earth, probably because that is where their bodies went in burial. All angelic beings will acknowledge Jesus’ lordship too (1 Cor. 15:27).”

Source: soniclight.com/constable/notes.htm

“Also in keeping with Isaiah (cf. 45:18), but now interrupting the language of the quotation itself, Paul purposely throws the net of Christ’s sovereignty over the whole of created beings: [those] in heaven refers to all heavenly beings, angels and demons; [those] on earth refers to all those who are living on earth when Christ comes, including those who are currently causing suffering in Philippi; and [those] under the earth probably refers to “the dead,” who also shall be raised to acknowledge his lordship over all.”

Source: biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Phil/Example-Christ

…Assumption of Mary is implied in Revelation 12:1-5. There a woman clothed with the sun appears in heaven. The woman have a crown her head. She also gave birth to a male-child who will rule the world with an iron rode. The male-child is Jesus. The mother of Jesus is Mary.

I have read many commentaries, even by some Catholic commentators, that say the woman referred to in Rev. 12 is the Nation of Israel. But even if it is Mary, what in that passage says while on earth she was assumed into heaven? Again, the scriptural evidence is slim to none. I think most Catholic scholars would admit there is no scriptural evidence and just pin their case on “Tradition” or something else.

Indulgence is given from binding and losing based of Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:18…

You got your definition of indulgence wrong:

It is actually, “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church’s help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints”

You might want to look at this on Indulgence. It separate myth from fact:

catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp

As I stated, indulgences are based on temporal punishment for sins forgiven before death that occurs after death. There is no direct teaching by Peter, Paul, or any other N.T. writer that such punishment, if it exists at all for the believer, is administered after his death. Christ paid for all our sins in full and took all our punishments at Calvary. To say we are still punished for any of our sins, especially those that are forgiven and especially after we die, is to say Christ did not make a complete payment, and we have to complete the payment adding to what He did. That is just not right. And Paul would say it is a “different gospel” that earns whoever teaches it the divine curse of God (Gal. 1:6-9).

 

[moondweller]

Phil,

It just goes to show that everything that Christians need to believe doesn’t have to be in the Bible (as long as it consist with orthodox Christian belief) since a lot of Non-Catholic Christians often criticized Catholics of so-called “unbiblical” (not in Scripture) doctrines of the faith.

There’s a big difference between using a phrase or words that codify what is explicitly or implicitly taught and expressed in the Scriptures (i.e, Trinity), vs. adding to the faith extra-biblical doctrines that even contradict what is explicitly or implicitly taught in the Scriptures.

 

[moondweller]

I generally agree with what you just posted… I own personal issues with this “doctrine” is when this tradition of man (over emphisis of this notion) does in fact begin negating the clear teachings of Christ. For instance I know some folks who are very well meaninged, but would sharply disagree with your comment that there is any call for any “obedience” of any kind, excepting perhaps to “the bible”.

This is the type of person who believe they’re “saved” because they said a certain prayer at one point in their life, and that this one prayer is totally sufficient to cover anything they ever have or ever will do in their life which would be offensive to God no matter how great or small. This is highly problematic, also problematic is when people start denying the clear necessity of the sacraments.

But yes, I do aboslutly agree with your post making up the good core starting place of a healthy faith in Jesus Christ.

No one was ever saved by reciting a “certain prayer” at a point in one’s life any more than one was saved by being water baptized at the beginning of one’s life. The N.T. clearly expresses that salvation is a personal GIFT of God upon one’s (personal) faith in Jesus Christ. It’s a personal gift based on a personal faith (Eph. 2:8-9). For instance, when the Philippian jailer asked what he must do to be saved, their response was to, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,” That’s a “personal” faith in Christ. Though Christ is the “Savior of the world” (1 Jn. 4:14), salvation was not personally gifted to him until he personally believed. Hence, Christ is one’s personal Savior.

Catholics have a difficult time with the phrase because in Catholicism there’s no concept of “saved” in this lifetime.

 

[CWBetts]

No one was ever saved by reciting a “certain prayer” at a point in one’s life any more than one was saved by being water baptized at the beginning of one’s life. The N.T. clearly expresses that salvation is a personal GIFT of God upon one’s (personal) faith in Jesus Christ. It’s a personal gift based on a personal faith (Eph. 2:8-9). For instance, when the Philippian jailer asked what he must do to be saved, their response was to, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,” That’s a “personal” faith in Christ. Though Christ is the “Savior of the world” (1 Jn. 4:14), salvation was not personally gifted to him until he personally believed. Hence, Christ is one’s personal Savior.

Catholics have a difficult time with the phrase because in Catholicism there’s no concept of “saved” in this lifetime.

You have just shown your ignorance of Catholic doctrine. The response to the question of “are you saved”/" is that we have been saved (through baptism), we are being saved (through our personal walk) and that we will be saved (at judgement). I would challenge you to show where the Bible states that faith is all you need.

 

[moondweller]

You have just shown your ignorance of Catholic doctrine. The response to the question of “are you saved”/" is that we have been saved (through baptism), we are being saved (through our personal walk) and that we will be saved (at judgement). I would challenge you to show where the Bible states that faith is all you need.

You see? Catholicism has no concept of saved (a completed Divine act) through personal faith in the Person and work of Christ. Hence, a Catholic cannot comprehend the concept of a truly personal salvation or Savior. If you’re “being saved” then you’re not “saved.” If you “will be saved,” then you’re not “being saved,” nor have you ever been “saved.” But rather it remains a future hope based on your present performance.

I would challenge you to show where the Bible states that faith is all you need.

I already did with Acts 16:31. However:Eph 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

 

[choy]

I don’t think the formulation was intended as a slam against Catholics, or even with Catholics much in mind.

A lot of the adult Evangelicals I grew up among were escapees from the drearier mainline denominations whose laxity and lukewarmness were a cause of lifelong resentment for them. I gather that at the time the phrase “personal Lord and Saviour” was coined, a lot of sap had run out of mainstream American Christianity, and Evangelicals were trying to call attention to the reality of God–that He was not just a vague presence attached to the church that the members reluctantly filled on Sunday, but a loving Father who had an interest and a claim on the individual believer. The phrase was intended as a way of waking certain Christians up to an aspect of God that had become no longer obvious to them.

but God is attached to the Church
the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ

the two misconceptions of many Evangelicals is that the Church is merely an organization with a building and officers leading this organization. the True Church is much more than that. as shown in the Bible, Christ fully intends to marry His Church, as His Bride. this is symbolic of a man and wife becoming one through matrimony, Christ is one with His Church in the same way