Personal Relationship with Christ ?!?!?

[gtsecc]

Not only do I find it mawkish, I think the theology it implies is weird and misguided.



The buisness of the Church is the redemption of the whole world, not this silly friendshop with Jesus, as if we all had crying session on Oprah.



Who came up with this phrase?



What does it mean?

[karen freeinchristman]

Not only do I find it mawkish, I think the theology it implies is weird and misguided.

The buisness of the Church is the redemption of the whole world, not this silly friendshop with Jesus, as if we all had crying session on Oprah.

Who came up with this phrase? What does it mean?

I'm sorry, but I can't see how this theology is misguided. Some scriptural references:

Job 29:4
Luke 5:20
Luke 12:4
and especially, John 15:13-15, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead; I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you."

:)

[Fish and Bread]

A lot of times words and phrases that we use to describe religious experiences can put folks off, because they have certain connotations in their minds about what it means that probably weren't the original intent of the folks who coined them. For example, "born again" has come to mean something a little different than what St. Paul meant when he wrote it, in my view (For example, some people might be surprised to learn that you don't have to be obnoxious in order to be born again! ;)).

When we pray privately to God about personal things, we are in a relationship with him of a personal nature. When we feel the presence of God around us and know that he knows we're feeling it and smiling, that too is an example of relationship. Even when we're wrestling with God, that is a type of relationship, and at the end of it, in the scriptures, some have received blessings as a result. These are things that most Christians do. In fact, we enter into a personal relationship with God at our baptisms.

I think that sometimes when we hear the phrase "personal relationship with God" spelled out like that, we think that means we have to be running around shouting "Hallejuah!" and asking God what he thinks about the latest episode of the Gilmore Girls or something. But it doesn't have to mean that. It can just mean normal Christian activities that God describes to us in the bible and in the traditions of the Church. I think the phrase was chiefly invented to try to draw people into deeper private prayer, mediation, and awareness who might previously have viewed God from a distance and only prayed when they were attending church each week and so forth. Religion at it's best is usually both communal and personal. Doing just one or the other is better than nothing, but only half of the total picture, in my view. :)

John

[AveMaria]

I'm not sure how the phrase entered pop culture, but I suspect it goes back to the tent revival circuit, with Billy Sunday.

Anyone happen to know for sure?

The phrase is very off-putting to me, as well. I feel as though it conures up this image of "He's MY saviour, not yours, so hands off!"

[karen freeinchristman]

I'm not sure how the phrase entered pop culture, but I suspect it goes back to the tent revival circuit, with Billy Sunday.

Anyone happen to know for sure?

The phrase is very off-putting to me, as well. I feel as though it conures up this image of "He's MY saviour, not yours, so hands off!"

The phrase is just a set of words, and the words have a real meaning. Looking beyond the cringe factor people might have with the phrase, isn't it important to have a personal relationship with Christ? An impersonal relationship doesn't seem to convey love.

[PaladinValer]

The "personal relationship" idea was born during the Jesus Movement of the 1960's.

That is enough for me to reject it.

My relationship with Christ goes far beyond anything like that anyway. I can say it is quite intimate infact: Holy Communion.

[AveMaria]

PV - Hard to get much more personal than eating the most precious body and blood of Our Lord, hm? :thumbsup:

Seriously, though, if anyone has a citation for how the phrase became common usage, I'd like to know. It might come in handy some day.

[PaladinValer]

Other than when our theosis is complete, I cannot honestly think of anything more intimate or close. :)

[AngCath]

Although I don't think there is anything wrong with the phrase.. I do worry about how it has led many to believe that Jesus is a divine pal and His roles as Pantocrator, Great High Priest, and Lamb of God are greatly reduced. To me, its just another sound-byte. nothing wrong with it itself, but it does leave A LOT out.

[Wigglesworth]

I have a personal relationship with my wife.

I have an impersonal relationship with my insurance agent.

I want my relationship with Jesus Christ to be more like the one I have with my wife. It should be intimate, interactive, loving, respectful, and involve spending much time together.

Many people call themselves Christians because they go to church on Sundays or holidays and go through the motions with a hollow soul. That is why it is important to know that we can and should have a personal relationship with Him.


:crossrc:

[pmcleanj]

The "personal relationship" idea was born during the Jesus Movement of the 1960's.

That is enough for me to reject it.

Awww :( Come on...

Every time I hear Paul Brandt's cover of Convoy -- and I hear it a lot from the cricket chorus in the back seat because they are die-hard Paul Brandt fans and memorize all his songs two octaves higher than he records them -- I smile fondly at the "seven long-haired friends of Jaysus in a chartreuse microbus". I'd love a chartreuse microbus with psychedelic vinyl flower appliques, just to celebrate that line.

Like most genres of the counter-culture, the Jesus People didn't have long-term staying power. But I know of lovely high-church Anglicans, grandmothers now, who cracked open a Bible (KJV only -- Good News for Modern Man didn't cut it for the Jesus People!) for the first time while dallying with the Jesus People. It was a place for many hippies to start, once they realized that Bob Dylan didn't have all the answers after all.

[karen freeinchristman]

The "personal relationship" idea was born during the Jesus Movement of the 1960's.

That is enough for me to reject it.



I disagree that the idea was born at that time. As I earlier referenced, there is scriptural evidence for the idea of the personal relationship. Friendship is personal. Jesus said we are his friends. That is enough for me to accept it.

[PaladinValer]

No, it was born at that time. No idea of "relationship" like that in Christianity until then.

Pmcleanj, I do agree that it was a good start for many people; you are absolutely right there. :) However, like AngCath, I do find it a potentially (to be fair) dangerous idea for the reasons Wigglesworth gives, among others.

[higgs2]

I think that it's incorrect to talk about person vs. impersonal, in this context it should be personal vs. corporate. I don't think that they're necessarily opposites, but it's important to have a balance. Some people who emphasize the "personal relationship with Jesus" discount the corporate relationship, which for Anglicans is embodied in the Church. That could be why the phrase is so grating to some of us, because it often devalues corporate worship and holds personal "experience" as all-important.

[karen freeinchristman]

No, it was born at that time. No idea of "relationship" like that in Christianity until then.



How should we then interpret the reference to friendship that Jesus made?
(John 15:13-15) I haven't heard this addressed. :sigh:

[TomUK]

How should we then interpret the reference to friendship that Jesus made?
(John 15:13-15) I haven't heard this addressed. :sigh:

I totally agree with your previous posts, Karen.

I have no objection to conceiving of Christ as friend (like i have no problem with understanding God as 'mother'). However, when we begin limiting how we understand Jesus to just the concept of 'friend', then it's there that problems start to arise. There are thousands of ways we can enter into a relationship with Christ. He is a Priest, a King, a Friend, a Saviour, a Healer, a Master... ad infinitum. The more 'facets' of Christ we explore through prayer and study, the closer to him we become.

To dismiss Christ as friend is to dismiss a part of Christ.

[gitlance]

The doctrine is fine, so long as it is properly understood that having a relationship with Christ means submitting to His Lordship, conforming to His Image, and being fed by His Flesh and Blood.

Jesus is both our Ruler and our Advocate, our Master and our Friend, our King and our Companion. He is our Comforter, our Redeemer, our Mediator, our God, our Strength, and our Brother.

Jesus is Alpha and Omega.

You will not stray so long as you keep the above in mind. The danger is when Jesus is seen as being "buddy-buddy" with us, always ready to do whatever we ask whenever we ask it. That is a very dangerous deception.

Having a true relationship with Christ means that we become one with Him, united in His being.

"The Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is." St. Irenaeus

:crossrc:

[Naomi4Christ]

A personal relationship with your God is pretty special - it sets Christians apart from other religions.

It would only be a social club, in my opinion, without that personal relationship. What is the alternative point of view?

[Mick116]

"But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God".

"Our Father...etc"

When speaking of our relationship with God, the scriptures make it very clear that we who are in Christ are children of God (by adoption), and that, having been made children, Jesus Christ is now our brother.

[IowaLutheran]

The phrase is not the problem. The problem is that many of the people who speak the phrase seem to be implying that one "accomplishes" a personal relationship with Christ because of a "decision" we have made.

I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, but I acknowledge that the relationship was not obtained by my own reason or strength, but instead, that the Holy Spirit called me and has nurtured me through the Church.

[trooper]

The generic idea, as opposed to the denominationa issues we all seem to take hard, is that we can speak to God, that he can speak to us. That there is an actual relationship, though obviously one of master and servant.

I think from a Catholic point of view, we would say that the alternative to a personal relationship is one in which God is an idea but not a reality that can be active in our lives.

Once we take it out of the negative Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart thing, I think that the theology is absolutely ok.

[Naomi4Christ]

Some people who emphasize the "personal relationship with Jesus" discount the corporate relationship, which for Anglicans is embodied in the Church. That could be why the phrase is so grating to some of us, because it often devalues corporate worship and holds personal "experience" as all-important.

Isn't the Christian faith about all relationships? It's about our relationship with God and Jesus, of course, but it's also about our relationships with one another, and our relationships with non-Christians. Meaning that you have a personal relationship with Jesus (which, frankly, to me, is something that defines a Christian), does not mean that you ignore everyone else - he has called us to have good and loving relationships (Sermon on Mount and other places). The two great commandments sums it all up. It should leave us in no doubt as to what is expected of us.

I should think that Jesus enjoys when we have corporate worship - but it is because of the fellowship that we share with one another and how we get together to learn more about him.

[AveMaria]

Interestingly enough, I had dinner with my mother tonight, and the conversation turned to this very topic.

Mum has a much more evangelical background than I do, and we often have difficulty discussing religion because we don't 'speak the same language'.

Anyhow, she raised what I thought was a good question: Regardless of what the phrase "to have a personal relationship with Jesus" may have once meant, has it become so entangled with televangelism that it is a phrase that needs to be retired? Is it helpful or a hindrance in sharing the Gospel?

[Simon_Templar]

There are some problems that have arisen from the idea of the "personal relationship" with Jesus.. not necessarily inherent in the idea but rather from the crowd that produced the phrase... the problems produced are essentially summed up by a lack of sacredness and fear of God.
these problems tend to manifest in a view of God that he is like your buddy who's coming over sunday for beers and football. Or that he is your big teddy bear that grants wishes...

However, the actual central idea behind the "personal relationship" is entirely necessary especially for the old line traditional churches.
The basic idea behind the phrase (I'm speaking from 30 years experience in the non denom. church where this phrase was a by-word) is that our faith must be a personal experience, it must have meaning to us personaly. We must know Jesus Personaly.

When the time comes for us to meet Jesus all that will matter is wether he is going to say "depart from me I never KNEW you" or " Well done my good and faithful servant Gtsecc, trooper, ave maria, simon templar... " and so on. How much you receive sacrements, or observe traditions, or attend worship services means nothing if it is not a personal thing for you that touches you on a personal level.

This is not fuzzy theology, this is one of the main themes of the entire bible.. the fact that God desires us. He desires us to walk with him as individuals as he did with adam, enoch.. he desires us to praise and adore him with our whole heart as david did.. the book of song of solomon.. all the refrences to the bride of christ.. the entire marriage relationship throughout scripture is an allegory for the fact that God desires us to love him personaly. Not detachedly.. not just as part of a universe of voices, but as individual persons.

[Fish and Bread]

Anyhow, she raised what I thought was a good question: Regardless of what the phrase "to have a personal relationship with Jesus" may have once meant, has it become so entangled with televangelism that it is a phrase that needs to be retired? Is it helpful or a hindrance in sharing the Gospel?

I think generally it's good to meet people where they're at. When St. Paul visited various cities, it seems as though, based on the letters that are attributed to him in the bible and bits and pieces that are recorded in Acts of the Apostles, he'd modify the way he phrased things based on who he was talking to. The fundamental truths of the faith did not change, he preached Christ and Christ crucified to everyone, but he might focus on God as the great unknown God they'd been worshipping at a monument in one city or focus on God's connection to the Jewish people in the letter to the Hebrews, etc. Today, I think sometimes we miss out on that. If you're talking to an atheist, the phrase "personal relationship with God" is probably going to be a stumbling block for them and it might be good to phrase the same concept in a much different way, whereas if you're talking to a Southern Baptist about your faith as an Episcopalian, it might be good to use their terminology where it fits. Being mindful of your audience can be a virtue, so long as you're only modifying the way you're conveying something and not modifying the meaning behind the words.

John

[Naomi4Christ]

Anyhow, she raised what I thought was a good question: Regardless of what the phrase "to have a personal relationship with Jesus" may have once meant, has it become so entangled with televangelism that it is a phrase that needs to be retired? Is it helpful or a hindrance in sharing the Gospel?

I know the situation is very different in the US, but here, it is fine to talk about a personal relationship with Christ in Christian circles - for example, in a bible study, during a group prayer time, or a public testimony. No one goes around spouting off about their personal relationship to non-Christians as either an evangelical tool, or to make out that they are superior to other people. We don't have tele-evangelists either.

[karen freeinchristman]

We don't have tele-evangelists either.

And for that, I thank the good Lord! ;)

[AveMaria]

I know the situation is very different in the US, but here, it is fine to talk about a personal relationship with Christ in Christian circles - for example, in a bible study, during a group prayer time, or a public testimony. No one goes around spouting off about their personal relationship to non-Christians as either an evangelical tool, or to make out that they are superior to other people. We don't have tele-evangelists either.

No televangelists? Lucky!!!

Over here, it's not uncommon for street preachers to approach total strangers and demand, "Have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior? If not, you're going to roast in the fires of hell!" - I have a number of friends who were turned off the idea of Christianity by such evangelism tactics. Quite sad.

Anyhow, I think due to the different culture, if you approached a random American athiest or non-Christian on the street and asked them what a Christian was, that the televangelist or the in-your-face street preacher would be the most common answer.

[ahab]

Most of the NT is about a relationship with Christ Jesus, so much so infact that Christ imparts the Holy Spirit to live in us. To be in Christ is to obey His teachings and worship and pray and talk to the Father God. Part of that is breaking the bread and drinking the wine in remembrance of Him. I would suggest that anyone who does so is living out part of that relationship with Christ. But of course its very much more than just the eucharist, the NT is primarily not about the eucharist

peace

[Wigglesworth]

I don't connect the term "personal relationship" with televangelism at all. I connect it with the way Moses, Peter, James, and John interacted with God. I want to interact with God that way. He talks to us, and we need to listen to Him as well as talk.

The term is more important when talking to a nominal Christian than a complete unbeliever. Part of evangelism is impressing people with the reality of their need for Him. The self-deceived need to be shown the truth, or they will have no reason to believe in Him at all. People who call themselves Christians who do not have a personal relationship with Jesus are missing a vital element of the Way.

If I had a time machine and could choose to live someone else's life, I might choose that of St. John. He had a personal relationship with Jesus. He and Jesus were friends, and I don't believe that friendship diminished John's respect for the divinity of Christ one bit.

:crossrc:

[gtsecc]

What is the alternative point of view?
Corporate redemption of the whole world, through Christ.

[gtsecc]

the NT is primarily not about the eucharist

peace

There is an institution narative in 3 Gospels, and John is an institution narrative entirely. Which Bible are you reading?

[Naomi4Christ]

Corporate redemption of the whole world, through Christ.

But what does that really mean, though, and how does it help us to live the way that Jesus wants us to live?

How does it help us to have a right relationship with one another, and also to live our lives with a sense of perspective?

[Naomi4Christ]

There is an institution narative in 3 Gospels, and John is an institution narrative entirely.

Institution narrative - I haven't heard this term before. What does it mean?

[Philip]

Institution narrative - I haven't heard this term before. What does it mean?

A narrative of Christ instituting the Eucharist.

[Philip]

There is an institution narative in 3 Gospels, and John is an institution narrative entirely. Which Bible are you reading?

St Paul includes one too.

[SirTimothy]

And for that, I thank the good Lord!

And all God's people said.... Amen!

Timothy (I couldn't resist.... Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa!)

[Naomi4Christ]

A narrative of Christ instituting the Eucharist.

That and more - thanks :)

[gtsecc]

"Personal Relationship" with Christ - not in the Bible
"Take, Eat, This IS my Body" - all over the NT.

[Naomi4Christ]

"Personal Relationship" with Christ - not in the Bible
"Take, Eat, This IS my Body" - all over the NT.

Yes, and...?

Of course, you can infer a personal relationship in several places.

Do you not believe in a personal relationship? Are you not filled with the Holy Spirit? Do you have no spiritual gifts? Surely not!

[SirTimothy]

Personal relationship has become a cliche, I admit that, but I don't agree that it's an incorrect cliche. Jesus came to RESTORE our relationship with God, similar to what Adam and Eve had in the garden... you can't deny that was a personal relationship? A personal relationship is merely a one-on-one relationship, which is exactly what we have with Christ. We also have a corporate relationship, where we can join together to talk to him.

Oh, and I'd really appreciate it if you don't derail this thread with an argument about Eucharistic theology please? I don't really like having to wade through stuff not related to the discussion to find out where the discussion has gone, and it means for threads that I'm interested in, I end up not responding because there's too much off-topic stuff.

Timothy

[marciebaby]

To KNOW Him, personally. Not to just attend church on Sunday and then go home. But to invite Christ into every aspect of your life. To talk with him, and long for his presence and guidance and peace. I think a "personal relationship" with Christ is very important.

[gitlance]

Maybe it's the ex-Evangelical in me, or perhaps just my image of Christ, but I fail to see how Christianity could not promote some sort of relationship with Christ. After all, the Church is married to him, is she not? Monks and nuns consecrate themselves entirely to Christ. Jesus gives himself, physically, in the Eucharist as the consummation of his marriage to the Church. He has sent his Spirit to dwell within us. His Spirit now bears witness to our spirit that we are indeed children of the Most High. We just have to keep everything in perspective. Jesus Christ, may He ever be praised, is the LORD and supreme RULER of all. He is the pantokrator, the King of the Universe. And yet, he humbled himself and took on flesh, so that he might show forth his love to all of humanity. He is merciful, and he is just. His love extends throughout the entire expanse of the universe, and yet it is tender enough to hold each and every one of us close to His Sacred Heart: assuring us that we are His, and He won't let anybody take us away from His love. We serve a mighty God indeed! We serve a God who is Lord of All, but also Friend to those in need.

For we are no longer servants, but sons.

[karen freeinchristman]

I would bet an awful lot of blessings that all of us here would agree that our God (including Jesus Christ) should be revered!

[Inside Edge]

He and Jesus were friends, and I don't believe that friendship diminished John's respect for the divinity of Christ one bit.
Jesus was also a man in the flesh at that time. If Jesus walked (physically) into my house from time to time, I'd have no problem making a personal friend out of Him.

To KNOW Him, personally. Not to just attend church on Sunday and then go home. But to invite Christ into every aspect of your life. To talk with him, and long for his presence and guidance and peace.
I do a lot of talking (i.e. praying) but don't get any audible linguistic communication coming back. There's no "conversation" by any recognizable means, as I would expect from a "personal friend." This is not to say I don't long for God's presence or peace. And it is also not to say that there is no communication at all. However, it doesn't come in the form of mundane, linguistic or audible conversation that a couple of personal friends or relatives experience or exchange on a regular basis.

To me, the concept of Christ as a "personal friend" of some sort sounds an awful lot like striving to make God as close to our own image, for our own comfort, as is possible. To my knowledge and experience, Jesus had His time on this earth in physical form, and is now something else, something more. The part of Him that sat down and had dinner with friends, shook their hands, embraced them, etc, is in the past. He's transcended that existence, having fulfilled whatever purpose it had, and now we're called to something different.

I don't need to have Jesus over for dinner or high-five him when I solve another problem with a firewall. He's provided for so much more than some human-like friendship (intimate or otherwise) and it just doesn't jive for me to imagine him as such.

[Wigglesworth]

Jesus was also a man in the flesh at that time. If Jesus walked (physically) into my house from time to time, I'd have no problem making a personal friend out of Him.

He is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

I do a lot of talking (i.e. praying) but don't get any audible linguistic communication coming back. There's no "conversation" by any recognizable means, as I would expect from a "personal friend." This is not to say I don't long for God's presence or peace. And it is also not to say that there is no communication at all. However, it doesn't come in the form of mundane, linguistic or audible conversation that a couple of personal friends or relatives experience or exchange on a regular basis.

This description is not the universal Christian experience. Many Christians do hear God in precisely the way described. There are prophets today as there were when Ezekiel, Elijah, and Elisha communicated in dialogue with God. Moreover, the Holy Spirit dwells within Christians since the first Pentecost after the Ascension, so He talks to His people from within them all the time. This is not uncommonly in the form of discernable linguistic statements from the Holy Spirit (i.e. God).

To me, the concept of Christ as a "personal friend" of some sort sounds an awful lot like striving to make God as close to our own image, for our own comfort, as is possible. To my knowledge and experience, Jesus had His time on this earth in physical form, and is now something else, something more. The part of Him that sat down and had dinner with friends, shook their hands, embraced them, etc, is in the past. He's transcended that existence, having fulfilled whatever purpose it had, and now we're called to something different.

He is not now something else. He is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. He did conform to manhood. He still has a body and will return to earth bodily. That's why He's the Son of Man. We were created in His image, we are not trying to make Him conform to ours.

The purpose of the Incarnation was to give all of the members of the Body of Christ the opportunity to know God as Peter, James, and John knew him.

[Inside Edge]

He is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.
Well, we're just going to have to disagree, I suppose. Because I say he's not.

This description is not the universal Christian experience.
But neither is yours. I suppose what I wrote was more or less in response to those who I've experienced preaching at me that indeed, some sort of personal-friend-saviour-pseudo-human Jesus is the universal (or only) Christian experience.

He is not now something else. He is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.
Again, all I can say is, "no, he's not."

He did conform to manhood.
Did. Yes. Past tense. He no longer does.

He still has a body and will return to earth bodily.
Really? Where is "it?" That is, his physical body? Where is He? Unless he's physically walking this Earth somewhere as I type, he's not the same as he always was (with regards to his humanity). At least for the time being, he's just not the same as when he lived his (almost) mortal life 2000 years ago.

[ContraMundum]

I think it's a great phrase because it spurs us on to having a real relationship with Christ, which so many in the Church and the world fear, because of what it means to their lives (eg. they would have to make real changes!).

It brings thoughts of the amazing possibilities one can experience and have when one sees Jesus as their own personal Saviour and friend. This is part of the Christian message and really the phrase comes from many passages of the Bible. Remember Jesus says that if He never knew us, we will be rejected, despite doing things in His name.

Make Jesus your friend now! :thumbsup:

[Fish and Bread]

Well, we're just going to have to disagree, I suppose. Because I say he's not.

One of the great things about Anglicanism is the wide diversity of opinion we have on a lot of issues. Everyone is welcome to our table who loves Christ and wants to be there. And I really enjoy many of your posts.

That said, I do want to respectfully point out that by saying Jesus is not the same "yesterday, today, and forever", that may be moving outside the traditional Christian teaching. I myself am probably outside of traditional understandings on some issues (Though I agree with the traditional teaching on this one), so we're in the same boat, but I wanted to make sure it was a concious choice on your part in this instance and that you know what the Church has taught. I'm not sure if it is meant to be taken so literally as to say his actual earthly body is still around or not, but the phrase is definitely one with roots.

Really? Where is "it?" That is, his physical body? Where is He?

It sounds like from scriptures that his physical body was assumed bodily into heaven. Granted, he has his "powers" back after having emptied himself on many of them prior to his earthly existance, but I don't think his body disintegrated or something. I'm not terribly well informed on this issue, though. Are there any famous theologians or church fathers who say his body has been destroyed or altered in a way that it would not be recognizeably human?

John

[Simon_Templar]

Well, we're just going to have to disagree, I suppose. Because I say he's not.


But neither is yours. I suppose what I wrote was more or less in response to those who I've experienced preaching at me that indeed, some sort of personal-friend-saviour-pseudo-human Jesus is the universal (or only) Christian experience.


Again, all I can say is, "no, he's not."


Did. Yes. Past tense. He no longer does.


Really? Where is "it?" That is, his physical body? Where is He? Unless he's physically walking this Earth somewhere as I type, he's not the same as he always was (with regards to his humanity). At least for the time being, he's just not the same as when he lived his (almost) mortal life 2000 years ago.

Actually, its an important and profound doctrine of orthodox theology that Jesus retained and retains his human body. The fact that a physical human body has been transformed into glorious incorruptability, yet remains physically human and is now seated at the right hand of God is part of the promise of the resurrection.. and in a real sense, part of the redemption of humanity corperately.

[Naomi4Christ]

I do want to respectfully point out that by saying Jesus is not the same "yesterday, today, and forever", that may be moving outside the traditional Christian teaching.

It is Christianity that is the same, yesterday, today and forever.

[Simon_Templar]

We often tend to get hung up on catch phrases like "personal relationship" and "born again" and the foolish fad ideas associated with them. The sad part is that in this we often miss the truth behind the real idea.

When I say "personal relationship" to me, it is the difference between knowing about God.. and knowing God. It is the difference between living faith and dead faith.

The relationship people have mostly forgotten the sacrements (in the protestant church), but the sacremental people also need to remember that sacrements only work through faith. We are saved by grace, through faith... the sacrements are grace, but their effects only come to us through faith.. faith can not be detached and impersonal.. it has to be within you, it has to be your earnest and passionate.

[karen freeinchristman]

We often tend to get hung up on catch phrases like "personal relationship" and "born again" and the foolish fad ideas associated with them. The sad part is that in this we often miss the truth behind the real idea.

When I say "personal relationship" to me, it is the difference between knowing about God.. and knowing God. It is the difference between living faith and dead faith.

The relationship people have mostly forgotten the sacrements (in the protestant church), but the sacremental people also need to remember that sacrements only work through faith. We are saved by grace, through faith... the sacrements are grace, but their effects only come to us through faith.. faith can not be detached and impersonal.. it has to be within you, it has to be your earnest and passionate.

That was very well said! :)

[ContraMundum]

It is Christianity that is the same, yesterday, today and forever.

Sorry, but, wrong.

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.

[Wigglesworth]

Thank you, ContraMundum. The Bible is often helpful in explaining Christian doctrines.


:thumbsup:

[Naomi4Christ]

The Bible is often helpful in explaining Christian doctrines.


:thumbsup:

No kidding! :D

[Inside Edge]

When I say "personal relationship" to me, it is the difference between knowing about God.. and knowing God. It is the difference between living faith and dead faith.
And that's what I think when I hear or say "personal relationship." Well said :) .
Actually, its an important and profound doctrine of orthodox theology that Jesus retained and retains his human body.
Maybe so, but I think it's best to leave it to the advanced theologians to defend or define this doctrine. It's far too easy for the average zealous person to end up with "buddy Christ" theology.

I wanted to make sure it was a concious choice on your part in this instance and that you know what the Church has taught. I'm not sure if it is meant to be taken so literally as to say his actual earthly body is still around or not, but the phrase is definitely one with roots.
I know what the Church teaches. I'm unconvinced, however, that what the Church teaches is in synch with the phrase and its context that the OP bring up.

The phrase often comes with a lot of baggage (bad baggage, in my opinion). In my experience, its use is almost interchangeable with any other facet of worldly life. That is to say, the nature of this "personal relationship" and references to Jesus are nearly interchangeable with any other person's name, as if Jesus high-fives someone when their hockey team scores or asks for another beer during the commercials.

I completely agree that a relationship with God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) needs or should be personal (to whatever extent). In fact, I'd say to have any sort of relationship with God is personal by definition. However, getting literal, definitive, and universal about the nature of that personal relationship is what leads to (in my opinion) some unhealthy ideas about Christ.

[NJA]

We often tend to get hung up on catch phrases like "personal relationship" and "born again" and the foolish fad ideas associated with them. The sad part is that in this we often miss the truth behind the real idea.

When I say "personal relationship" to me, it is the difference between knowing about God.. and knowing God. It is the difference between living faith and dead faith.

The relationship people have mostly forgotten the sacrements (in the protestant church), but the sacremental people also need to remember that sacrements only work through faith. We are saved by grace, through faith... the sacrements are grace, but their effects only come to us through faith.. faith can not be detached and impersonal.. it has to be within you, it has to be your earnest and passionate.
There is "one faith", "once delivered to the saints", whereby all can "pray in the Holy Spirit" to build up (edify) themselves in that faith (Jude 3, 20).
The receiving of the Holy Spirit (being "born again") is welll documented (compare John 3v8, Acts 2v4, 33, 39; 10v44-46, Galatians 4v6...). Jesus said that that is how he comes to us:-
"At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." (John 14v20)

The taking of bread and wine once a week is not a continual receiving of that, but a visible sign to all present of the fact that all members have received Jesus' Life, and they are eating his flesh and drinking his blood daily by drawing on the Spirit.

[gitlance]

There is "one faith", "once delivered to the saints", whereby all can "pray in the Holy Spirit" to build up (edify) themselves in that faith (Jude 3, 20).
The receiving of the Holy Spirit (being "born again") is welll documented (compare John 3v8, Acts 2v4, 33, 39; 10v44-46, Galatians 4v6...). Jesus said that that is how he comes to us:-
"At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." (John 14v20)

The taking of bread and wine once a week is not a continual receiving of that, but a visible sign to all present of the fact that all members have received Jesus' Life, and they are eating his flesh and drinking his blood daily by drawing on the Spirit.

That is incorrect. We are actually, truly, physically, and spiritually receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Blessed Savior in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. Jesus Christ, the 2nd person of the Trinity, comes to our midst under the accidentia of bread and wine. As His flesh is true food, and His blood is true drink, so it is that we receive that bread from heaven and blood of life in the Sacrament.

I am the bread of life. 49Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ 52The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ 53So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.’ 59He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum. 60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, ‘This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?’ 61But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, ‘Does this offend you? 62Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Incidentally, the word Jesus uses in that last verse for "spirit" is the Greek pneuma. It is the same word used two chapters earlier in John 4 to describe God: "God is pneuma." Also, when Jesus uses the word "flesh," He is using the word sarx. In John 1, the Word became sarx and dwelt among us.

I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ 25In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. 30For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged.

That's a pretty strong symbol if eating it unworthily can bring sickness or even death.

The Eucharist is the true Flesh and Blood of Jesus. It is our spiritual sustenance. The "medicine of immortality" and the "antidote to heresy" according to St. Ignatius, the disciple of St. John the Beloved, writing about AD 100.

I submit to you that our prayer, Bible study, etc, is an interaction with the 3rd person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Our partaking of the Holy Eucharist is a physical consummation and partaking of the 2nd person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ the Son. Through Him, we are brought to the 1st person of the Trinity, God the Father. For it is only through Christ that we come to the Father.

[NJA]

That is incorrect. We are actually, truly, physically, and spiritually receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Blessed Savior in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. Are you referring to the physical altar in the building where you worship ?

Surely the wine could not be the literal blood as Jesus had not yet died?

Therefore it is to be done in "remembrance" of the blood sacrifice.

Joh:6:55: For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed . . . 63: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

They needed to receive that Life by receiving the Spirit after His resurrection, so again, they didn't receive the life at the last supper.

Joh:4:32: But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.

[Wigglesworth]

Surely the wine could not be the literal blood as Jesus had not yet died?

Hello NJA!

It's nice to see a fellow charismatic believer in STR. :wave:

What your previous post refers to is what Old Catholics and many Anglicans believe to be the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. You can read more about it here (http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp).

It is a common doctrine among catholic churches (which includes Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican, Old Catholics, and a few others), because it was commonly believed by the church - even before the New Testament was complete. Opinions about the Real Presence range from that held by the Roman Catholics on one end (transubstantiation) to what your church probably believes on the other end of the spectrum (symbolism only).

[Fish and Bread]

It's worth noting that there is a middle ground between these two ideas that people tend to overlook. Christ can be completely in the Eucharist without us having to worry about chomping on a bone or swallowing too much hemoglobin. We can accept the intent to continue the Jewish tradition of the bread of presence in the Temple a new way, now referring to the true presence of Jesus' body body and blood in and amongst us. But this doesn't mean it's literally body and blood, just Christ's body and blood in the important respects. Clearly it in some way remains bread and wine.

Respectfully, I would submit that the link Wigglesworth posted is the Roman Catholic definition of Real Presence. As taken by Anglicans, Real Presence simply means that Christ is in some way present, with no further explanation. Thus, the interpretation I have above is fully in accord with a belief in the Real Presence, as is Wigglesworth's link, as is the idea that Martin Luther had, as is John Calvin's idea of the Holy Spirit being present as believers consume the bread and the wine, for that matter.

John

[Wigglesworth]

Respectfully, I would submit that the link Wigglesworth posted is the Roman Catholic definition of Real Presence. As taken by Anglicans, Real Presence simply means that Christ is in some way present, with no further explanation. Thus, the interpretation I have above is fully in accord with a belief in the Real Presence, as is Wigglesworth's link, as is the idea that Martin Luther had, as is John Calvin's idea of the Holy Spirit being present as believers consume the bread and the wine, for that matter.

This is true. There are many variations of belief in the Real Presence among us. Thanks for clarifying, John. I posted the Roman Catholic link, because it was a quick introduction to what I thought would be an opposite perspective for our friend.

:)

[trooper]

While I am personally one of those transsubstantiationist (is that really a word?) sort of Anglicans, I think that in fairness to the broadness of Anglicanism, we need to be honest about the spectrum of belief in our Communion. I am not so open minded as to not want to convert my low Church bretheren, but I do acknowledge that they exist in large force (see Nigeria and most of the African Continent). SO, let's not be CAPITAL LETTER sort of people as we work through these definitions.

We need to explain and teach, not pound the pulpit. Especially not with overly intellectual references that, frankly, mean squat to most people.

[Naomi4Christ]

We need to explain and teach, not pound the pulpit. Especially not with overly intellectual references that, frankly, mean squat to most people.

A voice in the wilderness indeed! I have a real bee in my bonnet about this. Ever the evangelist, I'd hate to see the unchurched read some of these posts - they'd run a mile! Plain English please!

[svdbygrace]

And for that, I thank the good Lord! ;)

Indeed, Lucky you! :P

Keeps quite that he is on the Billy Graham mailing list... ;)

[Naomi4Christ]

Keeps quite that he is on the Billy Graham mailing list... ;)

We like BG here!

[svdbygrace]

We like BG here!
:eek: :scratch: I am really on the mailing list! :doh: :)

Coming from a Baptist background, I would have to say that this term is used some, but mostly amoung Tele-evangelists. (Personal-Relationship with Christ).

[gtsecc]

We like BG here!
He is not a member of a Christian Church.

[Naomi4Christ]

He is not a member of a Christian Church.

He is a Christian so a member of the body of Christ, just like us.

[gtsecc]

He is a Christian so a member of the body of Christ, just like us.
Who is his bishop?

[higgs2]

He is a Christian so a member of the body of Christ, just like us.
Yes, I agree!!! And what good comes from statements to the contrary, anyhow? what is the problem with people that they want to discuss whenter a much loved religious figure is a member of the Christian Church or not, I just find it very upsetting that our threads seem to go in this direction so often. How divisive.

[higgs2]

Who is his bishop?
It does not matter he is still part of the body of Christ whether his church has bishops or not.

[gtsecc]

It does not matter he is still part of the body of Christ whether his church has bishops or not.
Sure, he is Christian, but he is NOT a member of a Church.
No Bishop = no Church

[svdbygrace]

No to go that much off topic... but he isn't a member of a Christian Church?

[Naomi4Christ]

Sure, he is Christian, but he is NOT a member of a Church.
No Bishop = no Church

Way to go for Christian unity, guys.

[Naomi4Christ]

Yes, I agree!!! And what good comes from statements to the contrary, anyhow? what is the problem with people that they want to discuss whenter a much loved religious figure is a member of the Christian Church or not, I just find it very upsetting that our threads seem to go in this direction so often. How divisive.

I am stunned by it.

For those that believe in a Sainthood (beyond what we all are, that is), then surely Billy Graham will be candidate. Him and Mother Theresa, shoulder to shoulder.

[karen freeinchristman]

I wonder if we had a closer PERSONAL relationship with Christ, we might be more interested in promoting unity???

just wondering... :sorry:

[Naomi4Christ]

Absolutely, Karen.

We should not be bickering amongst ourselves, and trashing other people's Christian faith. We should be going after the non-Christians - that's what we've been commanded to do. There is simply no room for piety in the modern church.

[svdbygrace]

Absolutely, Karen.

We should not be bickering amongst ourselves, and trashing other people's Christian faith. We should be going after the non-Christians - that's what we've been commanded to do. There is simply no room for piety in the modern church.

Indeed. :)

[higgs2]

I wonder if we had a closer PERSONAL relationship with Christ, we might be more interested in promoting unity???

just wondering... :sorry:


:D We might also be more interested in promoting unity if we placed a higher priority on our CORPORATE relationship with Christ. :D

[karen freeinchristman]

:D We might also be more interested in promoting unity if we placed a higher priority on our CORPORATE relationship with Christ. :D
agreed! :thumbsup:

(I was trying to bring the topic back on track with the thread)

[higgs2]

(I was trying to bring the topic back on track with the thread)

Well done. And round we go :)

[svdbygrace]

:thumbsup:

[Lel]

Who is his bishop?

Isn't that a bit Pharisaical to start caring about if someone has a bishop or not? I mean really now, did Jesus ask if people had bishops before counting them as His own?

[Wigglesworth]

. . . I mean really now, did Jesus ask if people had bishops before counting them as His own?

He gave them a pass on that, because they had a personal relationship.

:D

[gtsecc]

Isn't that a bit Pharisaical to start caring about if someone has a bishop or not?

No, Christ commissioned 12 Apostles, and they consecrated Bishops as their successors.
Ignatius writes about this specifically being where the church is and isn't.
How can anyone truely think they are obedient and ignore this?

[karen freeinchristman]

No, Christ commissioned 12 Apostles, and they consecrated Bishops as their successors.
Ignatius writes about this specifically being where the church is and isn't.
How can anyone truely think they are obedient and ignore this?
Maybe you could start a thread about this in the general theology section, to get a fair cross-section of Christian's responses?

[Lel]

No, Christ commissioned 12 Apostles, and they consecrated Bishops as their successors.
Ignatius writes about this specifically being where the church is and isn't.
How can anyone truely think they are obedient and ignore this?

We care more about serving Christ than worrying about Apostolic Succession.

[Naomi4Christ]

No, Christ commissioned 12 Apostles, and they consecrated Bishops as their successors.
Ignatius writes about this specifically being where the church is and isn't.
How can anyone truely think they are obedient and ignore this?

The reason I find it hard to take this opinion at all seriously is because we go out of way to have as little to do with our bishop as possible. He's certainly not on the coal face of Christian work where we are.

[Naomi4Christ]

We care more about serving Christ than worrying about Apostolic Succession.

Absolutely!

[gitlance]

We care more about serving Christ than worrying about Apostolic Succession.

The Early Church would say that it's impossible to fully serve Christ without the Apostolic Succession.