Thread: Purgatory: A "personal" relationship with Jesus Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000633

---

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
While I heard this phrase in the churches of my youth and early 20s, I must say, much like the eternal begotten-ness of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit, it's not something I enquired into too deeply: I simply accepted it without fully understanding it.

From a Protestant point of view [as this is where, until today, I've only heard the phrase], can someone flesh out for me what exactly this means? I would think it a generalisation that it necessarily means, "Me and Jesus alone and that's it", though I don't doubt here are those who think this way, but what does it mean both in words and in practice?

To another church, and everyone's favourite low-church Catholic charismatic Max posted here:

quote:

---

...some of us Catholics are more like Protestants in communion with rome and really do believe that a personal relationship with Jesus and the forgiveness of sins are important things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
and we encounter him in a strange and symbolic (though nonetheless Real) fashion. Thus sacraments. There is a powerful 'not yet' element to sacramental Christianity. I think a lot of 'personal relationship with Jesus' though is based on an overly realised eschatology.

---

quote:

---

St. Macra, a martyr of the early Church, summed up what it means to relate personally to Jesus in this way. "Jesus Christ is my all in all," she told her persecutors. "He's my treasure, my life, my happiness … and nothing can separate me from Him." Even a Pentecostal evangelist could say a hearty amen to that!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I think it means something along the lines of "A person is not a Christian because her mother and father are Christians. A person is a Christian because she has developed her own friendship with God in Christ."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
Interesting: the evo-esque circles I moved (and still move, in a more open manner) in are very keen on religion as "relationship with God." Reasonable enough - but isn't "relationship" a bit of a metaphor here?

Unless you're a medaeval mystic hearing voices, this relationship doesn't consist of communication or interaction in any of the normal ways. Reading the bible give me as much of a relationship with God as reading tLotR does with JRR Tolkien.

In what sense is it a relationship at all with someone who, in a very real sense, isn't there?

- Chris.

---

For a Catholic in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist... Jesus is very much present in Body, Blood, Soul and divinity in our presence. As a priest put in his sermon a while ago - the Eucharist is not spiritual, but entirely physical.

Unlike eastern religions where one almost wants to seperate mind and body, Christianity UNITES our minds to our bodies and the celebration of the Eucharist unites our souls and our bodies together as both are norished by the Eucharistic meal, Jesus becomes part of our bodies physically and we are healed in both mind and body.

To say that Jesus isn't there is a very grave mistake, because in the Holy Eucharist he certainly is! Physically... not just in spirit!

I don't really know what a non-Catholic answer to your question would be Chris... I won't attempt to answer on behalf of a non-Catholic either - let's wait

Max
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Okay. I'm one of those who would 'fess up to having a relationship (personal? well, what else could it be?) with God.

I DO NOT think that my salvation depends on it, or that anyone else has to have my particular experience of God in order to be saved. To each his own.

I rather suspect that this talk of needing to have a relationship began as a clumsy attempt to say "More than mere intellectual assent is involved in being a Christian." But what form faith takes probably varies widely, depending on personality and on the gifts God gives each of us.
 

---

Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
So our "personal relationship" between Jesus is the same relationship as between an eater and the food he eats? I can go there (grudgingly) but then I fail to see why the adjective "personal". Is it because I am personally eating, and nobody else is eating? But everybody else is eating. When people are at table together, your relationship with the food is not personal, but communal.
 

---

Posted by Max. (# 5846) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
So our "personal relationship" between Jesus is the same relationship as between an eater and the food he eats? I can go there (grudgingly) but then I fail to see why the adjective "personal". Is it because I am personally eating, and nobody else is eating? But everybody else is eating. When people are at table together, your relationship with the food is not personal, but communal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

Okay. I'm one of those who would 'fess up to having a relationship (personal? well, what else could it be?) with God.

I DO NOT think that my salvation depends on it, or that anyone else has to have my particular experience of God in order to be saved. To each his own.

I rather suspect that this talk of needing to have a relationship began as a clumsy attempt to say "More than mere intellectual assent is involved in being a Christian." But what form faith takes probably varies widely, depending on personality and on the gifts God gives each of us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I think it means something along the lines of "A person is not a Christian because her mother and father are Christians. A person is a Christian because she has developed her own friendship with God in Christ."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I think it means something along the lines of "A person is not a Christian because her mother and father are Christians. A person is a Christian because she has developed her own friendship with God in Christ."

---

There's a problem with this, though. Those of us who don't usually use the "personal relationship" terminology don't think a person is a Christian because her mother and father are Christians. We (or most of us) think a person is a Christian because she has been baptized.

---

quote:

---

O res mirabilis!
manducat Dominum
Pauper, servus, et humilis

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max.:
But in the end it becomes a personal decision, one eventually has to confirm that decision when one reaches an age of reason or in other traditions when one is confirmed.

Max

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max.:
In my first post, I linked to an article which says what it means to have a Personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
There is no Catholic Rite of making the promises that were made for you at baptism your own personal ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max.:
But in the end it becomes a personal decision, one eventually has to confirm that decision when one reaches an age of reason or in other traditions when one is confirmed.

Max

---

This is certainly not the case in either the Catholic Church or in Orthodoxy. "Confirm" has an English use meaning to ratify, give assent to. That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Sacrament of Confirmation. The Sacrament of Confirmation or Chrismation is about being sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit. From the latin: confirmare = to strengthen. There is no Catholic Rite of making the promises that were made for you at baptism your own personal ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I would think it a generalisation that it necessarily means, "Me and Jesus alone and that's it", though I don't doubt here are those who think this way, but what does it mean both in words and in practice?

To another church, and everyone's favourite low-church Catholic charismatic Max posted here:

quote:

---

...some of us Catholics are more like Protestants in communion with rome and really do believe that a personal relationship with Jesus and the forgiveness of sins are important things.

---

(my italics)

I must say I was taken aback by this, though it may be how I am interpreting the phrase. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the corporate nature, the catholic nature, of the Catholic Church and the Sacramental Community were its joy and glory and hope. Or am I splitting hairs needlessly, and you can quite easily have both?

---

quote:

---

Mousethief said:
How can anybody tell by looking at another whether they have this "personal relationship" with Jesus?

How can I tell by looking at myself whether I have this "personal relationship" with Jesus?

---

quote:

---

sanityman said:
In what sense is it a relationship at all with someone who, in a very real sense, isn't there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I don't think you can tell by looking at another whether they have a personal realtionship with Jesus (and I don't think that's our job).

---

quote:

---

As for yourself, 2 Cor.13:5 says Test yourselves {to see} if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by C#:

But in practice in Catholic schools it's usually "You're in year 5/6/7 so you're all going to be confirmed." Most of the children stop attending mass as soon as they leave primary school, especially as most of the parents don't come to mass either. Somehow the message isn't getting through; it seems to be just lip-service.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by C#:
But in practice in Catholic schools it's usually "You're in year 5/6/7 so you're all going to be confirmed." Most of the children stop attending mass as soon as they leave primary school, especially as most of the parents don't come to mass either. Somehow the message isn't getting through; it seems to be just lip-service.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

In RC thought, this wouldn't render the sacrament invalid though, would it? My understanding of Roman Catholic thinking is that the sacrament is a means of grace regardless of the worthiness of the recipient. If true, this would help explain why the idea of a personal relationship with God is downplayed within the Roman tradition.

Happy to stand corrected here.

---

quote:

---

the sacrament is a means of grace regardless of the worthiness of the recipient

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

the sacrament is a means of grace regardless of the worthiness of the recipient

---

Gordon, where on earth do you get information like that? You know it is not accurate.

---

quote:

---

1128 This is the meaning of the Church's affirmation 49 that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: "by the very fact of the action's being performed"), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that "the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God."50 From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
My understanding of Roman Catholic thinking is that the sacrament is a means of grace regardless of the worthiness of the recipient. If true, this would help explain why the idea of a personal relationship with God is downplayed within the Roman tradition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ozowen:
I think that many (most) of the canonised saints exhibit a very real one to one relationship with Jesus. They are, according to doctrine, to be emulated. St Therese de Liseaux, for example, had amost intimate and personal relationship with Jesus. One I fear I shall not get close to in this life.

---

quote:

---

Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

---

quote:

---

ALMIGHTY and everliving God, we most heartily thank thee...who have duly received...the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ; and dost assure us...that we are very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, which is the blessed company of all faithful people

---

quote:

---

If Thou but trust in God to guide thee,
With hopeful heart through all thy ways.
God will give strength, whate'er betide thee,
To bear thee through the evil days.
Who trusts in God's unchanging love
Builds on the Rock that nought can move.

Only be still, and wait God's leisure
In cheerful hope, with heart content
to take whate'er thy Keeper's pleasure
And all-discerning love hath sent.
No doubt our inmost wants are clear
To One who holds us always dear.

Sing, pray and swerve not from God's ways,
But do thine own part faithfully;
Trust the rich promises of grace,
So shall they be fulfilled in thee.
God never yet forsook at need
The soul secured by trust indeed.

---

quote:

---

Late have I loved You, O Beauty so ancient and so new;
Late have I loved You.

For behold: You were within me, and I outside;
And I sought You outside –

And in my own unloveliness,
I fell upon those things that You have made.

You were with me, and I was not with You.
I was kept from You by those things,
Yet had they not been in You,
they would not have been at all.

You called and cried to me to break open my deafness,
And You sent forth Your beams,
And you shown upon me and chased away my blindness.

You breathed fragrance upon me,
And I drew in my breath and do now pant for You.

I tasted You, and now I hunger and thirst for You.

You touched me, and now I burn for Your peace.


Augustine

---

quote:

---

Take, Lord, receive all my liberty, my memory, understanding, my entire will.
All that I am and all that I possess
You have given me:
I surrender it all to You
to be disposed of wholly according to Your will.
Give me only Your love and Your grace;
that’s enough for me.
Your love and Your grace:
with these I will be rich enough
and will desire nothing more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Gordon, you quoted the answer:

quote:

---

[b] Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

---

[/qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

As has been hinted above, the Reformation owes more to the mystical traditions that is often recognised.

---

quote:

---

We are related to God through his written word, whereas mysticism quite deliberately bypasses and circumvents that scripture, or uses it as a mere tool to aid our meditation upon the divine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

As has been hinted above, the Reformation owes more to the mystical traditions that is often recognised.

---

I don't agree with this.

I really think that the Reformation principle of sola scriptura has as one of its targets any notion of mysticism. We are related to God through his written word, whereas mysticism quite deliberately bypasses and circumvents that scripture, or uses it as a mere tool to aid our meditation upon the divine.

---

quote:

---

we could try being honest and use the words God gives us

---

quote:

---

We are related to God through his written word,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:


But to say they targeted "any notion of mysticism" seems to go against the very high regard in which Luther held the Theologica Germanica as well as Tauler and Suso, who were definitely mystics.

---

quote:

---

It is certainly arguable that Luther owes the recognition that Christianity is not a mechanical process to the mystics, as well as the insight that we can only begin to reach God (or be reached by him) from a state of total brokenness. And yes, that was kind of from Augustine originally, but it seems to have been mediated to Luther via the mystics.

---

quote:

---

It also neglects the evangelical mystical tradition, as represented by Luther and a lot of the puritans. Read The Valley of Vision, which is a compilation of Puritan prayers, and then try arguing they weren't mystics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

We are related to God through his written word,

---

Are you saying that His written word is the only way in which we can relate to GOd?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
Which just moves the question into new words. What is a personal relationship with Christ? What does that look like? What is my own friendship with God in Christ? What would that look like?...

It seems to me the language of "personal relationship" does more harm than good. Yes, you're not a Christian just because your parents were. Nevertheless an undefined "personal relationship" is an impossible criterion to apply usefully. Perhaps it's time to put it on the shelf.

---

quote:

---

I am saying that the ultimate source of our knowledge is Scripture alone, thus excluding tradition, reason and experience (including mystical experience) as possible sources of such knowledge.

---

quote:

---

I am saying that the ultimate source of our knowledge is Scripture alone, thus excluding tradition, reason and experience (including mystical experience) as possible sources of such knowledge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Back to the OP, I find almost without exception, those who use that phrase--and there are seem to be--millions who equate "being a Christian" with those who "accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour" to be social conservative, reactive types who try to find justifications for their "dislike" of women and gays by quoting Bible verses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

I am saying that the ultimate source of our knowledge is Scripture alone, thus excluding tradition, reason and experience (including mystical experience) as possible sources of such knowledge.

---

So, tradition, reason and experience, mystic or otherwise cannot be a source of knowledge of God?

---

quote:

---

Can knowledge of God only be obtained from the Scriptures?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
For example, if I didn't know that Jesus was Lord, and you told me that he was, and I believed you, then I would have knowledge of God that you had given me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Obviously, it's not a helpful phrase for you. I think it IS helpful for a lot of people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Isn't that your experience of my telling you, and your reason telling you it could be believed with integrity and so on?

---

quote:

---

The only certain, ultimate source of knowledge of God, however, is Scripture—which is what sola Scriptura means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prudentius:

When someone asks "Do you have a personal relationship with God?" what is being asked is "Do you have an abstract, conceptual, or intellectual understanding of a Supreme Being, or have you ---through prayer and meditation -- developed your spirituality to the point where you know as a certainty that God loves you and hears your prayers and allows you to feel His presence in your life at your finest moments of openness to God?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:


conclude this "personal knowledge" thing is a bunch of hooey.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
What does it mean to "know" Jesus Christ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery of Faith:
That's sad, however, as I think we should all be trying to develop that "personal" aspect of our relationships with God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery of Faith:
That's sad, however, as I think we should all be trying to develop that "personal" aspect of our relationships with God.

---

Which in no way answers Mousethief's question.

'I think we ought to have a personal relationship with Jesus' is not a very adequate response to a sceptical challenge regarding the possibility and/or knowability of such a relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
But sabine, I can't make the term make sense at all. And nobody is willing to help me. (Save Andreas, and thank you Andreas, but that doesn't really answer my questions.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
Let's not let one group of people assume authority over definitions. If the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus" does not mean Lord and Savior and con-evo POVs to you, go ahead and make the term meaningful to yourself in ways that make sense to your own spiritual health.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
Let's not let one group of people assume authority over definitions. If the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus" does not mean Lord and Savior and con-evo POVs to you, go ahead and make the term meaningful to yourself in ways that make sense to your own spiritual health.

---

But we can't invent our own private language. It might be the case that the words 'personal relationship' - as used in English, and even when used analogically - cannot refer to any relation which obtains between a human being currently on earth and Jesus. If that is so, then it is the all too apparent 'meaning' of the constituent terms of the part which renders the phrase as a whole nonsensical.

---

DOD--you've gone from A (my statement straight to Z (private language) without stopping to consider that there are many groups of people organized into many religious traditions who use language in different ways to describe experience[.b]. No one group has the right to determine how a phrase is to be used by all.

So, what I'm saying is that we stop giving away our (meaning either personal or faith tradition's) power to one group to define language for all of the groups. Some of us may find great meaning in a private language or a personal relationship and this might not make sense to you or others, but that doesn't mean everyone should hop on board. Some of us may want the whole world to mean the same thing when they say [fill in the blank] but doesn't mean others will or should.

Part of the difficulty in discussing a phrase is that people have different ideas about what a phrase [b]means and if one group sets themselves up as have the only authoritative definition of that phrase, it will discourage the search for common ground.

hey, I have a personal relationship with my cup of coffee in the morning. I can say this in more than one language (well, ok, just one other language ) but that doesn't mean that it is the one, true definition of interaction between a human and a cup of coffee.

sabine

[ 26. April 2007, 14:57: Message edited by: sabine ]
 

---

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
Totally messed up code, and really didn't mean to have so much bold, so I'll repost:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
Let's not let one group of people assume authority over definitions. If the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus" does not mean Lord and Savior and con-evo POVs to you, go ahead and make the term meaningful to yourself in ways that make sense to your own spiritual health.

---

But we can't invent our own private language. It might be the case that the words 'personal relationship' - as used in English, and even when used analogically - cannot refer to any relation which obtains between a human being currently on earth and Jesus. If that is so, then it is the all too apparent 'meaning' of the constituent terms of the part which renders the phrase as a whole nonsensical.

---

DOD--you've gone from A (my statement) straight to Z (private language) without stopping to consider that there are many groups of people organized into many religious traditions who use language in different ways to describe experience. No one group has the right to determine how a phrase is to be used by all.

So, what I'm saying is that we stop giving away our (meaning either personal or faith tradition's) power to one group to define language for all of the groups. Some of us may find great meaning in a private language or a personal relationship and this might not make sense to you or others, but that doesn't mean everyone should hop on board. Some of us may want the whole world to mean the same thing when they say [fill in the blank] but doesn't mean others will or should.

Part of the difficulty in discussing a phrase is that people have different ideas about what a phrase means and if one group sets themselves up as have the only authoritative definition of that phrase, it will discourage the search for common ground.

hey, I have a personal relationship with my cup of coffee in the morning. I can say this in more than one language (well, ok, just one other language ) but that doesn't mean that it is the one, true definition of interaction between a human and a cup of coffee.

sabine

[ 26. April 2007, 15:01: Message edited by: sabine ]
 

---

Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
However, on the other hand, if someone feels that the phrase is deeply meaningful to them and you want to have a dialogue, then only that other person can try to explain it--in this case, it might be Andreas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
I'm rather disappointed nobody else has stepped up -- it's not a phrase commonly used in Orthodoxy, so I'm not at all sure Andreas's use of it matches that of other people on the Ship, although I'm sure his use of it is perfectly legitimate. I can't know whether I have a PRWJ until I know what the phrase means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
However, on the other hand, if someone feels that the phrase is deeply meaningful to them and you want to have a dialogue, then only that other person can try to explain it--in this case, it might be Andreas.[/qb]

---

I'm rather disappointed nobody else has stepped up -- it's not a phrase commonly used in Orthodoxy, so I'm not at all sure Andreas's use of it matches that of other people on the Ship, although I'm sure his use of it is perfectly legitimate. I can't know whether I have a PRWJ until I know what the phrase means.

I certainly don't have experiences which I would call numinous or miraculous or supernatural or otherworldly. Nor do I hear the voices of God or angels. I have emotional experiences, but so do total atheists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

The phrase "personal relationship with Jesus" is most commonly used among those who have a decision theology -- one says the sinner's prayer and decides to follow Jesus as their Lord and savior. None of that language is particularly from my tradition, so I am not particularly well-equipped to explain it. But it is a large strand of Christians -- and I tend to find them recognizably Christian.

I relate to the phrase in the sense that I find meaning in my faith as it engages both my heart and my head. I know that, e.g., it make some Christains' skin crawl to ask "What would Jesus do?", but I don't find that a vapid way of framing moral issues as a man of faith. Perhaps some of these kinds of expressions, that flow out of the same tradition as the phrase "a personal relationship with Jesus," may make the phrase more accessible.

But it is not unusual for phrases that are common in one faith tradition to be hard to explain outside that tradition. I have yet to hear what I would consider to be an intelligible explanation of the term "apophatic," but that does not mean that I believe that it has no meaning in that tradition. I just assume that it's a meaning that isn't easy to tanslate out of that tadition into another.

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
The phrase "personal relationship with Jesus" is most commonly used among those who have a decision theology -- one says the sinner's prayer and decides to follow Jesus as their Lord and savior. None of that language is particularly from my tradition, so I am not particularly well-equipped to explain it. But it is a large strand of Christians -- and I tend to find them recognizably Christian.

---

quote:

---

sabine asked:
MT, are you able to take on faith that some of us have had an experience that we have not (as of right now) been able to adequately describe to you in language which has meaning for you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:

quote:

---

sabine asked:

MT, are you able to take on faith that some of us have had an experience that we have not (as of right now) been able to adequately describe to you in language which has meaning for you?

---

Absolutely. That makes sense as a meaning for PRWJ. In which case I don't have one. <shrugs> Must not be saved?

---

[my bold] Not sure if you are asking about my particular POV on this (I'm tend to be a universalist, but I'm not sure I have a definitive answer about the afterlife) or just asking a rhetorical quesstion or looking for an answer from someone on the thread.

My answer would be: not for me to say.

sabine
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
I did have a decision moment. Fell to my knees and said the Sinner's Prayer. I count this as the moment at which I became a Christian.

What's a PRWJ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
DOD--you've gone from A (my statement) straight to Z (private language) without stopping to consider that there are many groups of people organized into many religious traditions who use language in different ways to describe experience. No one group has the right to determine how a phrase is to be used by all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Oh, and Seeker, 'being in a personal relationship with Jesus' palpably doesn't mean the same as 'being a committed disciple of Jesus'. When I say 'I am a committed disciple with Jesus, but do not have a personal relationship with him' I do not contradict myself. I might be wrong of course, but that is a separate question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Oh, and Seeker, 'being in a personal relationship with Jesus' palpably doesn't mean the same as 'being a committed disciple of Jesus'. When I say 'I am a committed disciple with Jesus, but do not have a personal relationship with him' I do not contradict myself. I might be wrong of course, but that is a separate question.

---

Sorry, I missed you saying that. I do not understand "being a committed disciple of Jesus but not being in a personal relationship with him". To me, that is a contradiction in terms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
I have yet to hear what I would consider to be an intelligible explanation of the term "apophatic,"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
No it doesn't. Everyone here would understand what I meant if I said C.S. Lewis had a strong personal relationship with George MacDonald.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
So our "personal relationship" between Jesus is the same relationship as between an eater and the food he eats? I can go there (grudgingly) but then I fail to see why the adjective "personal". Is it because I am personally eating, and nobody else is eating? But everybody else is eating. When people are at table together, your relationship with the food is not personal, but communal.

---

quote:

---

Josephine

There's a problem with this, though. Those of us who don't usually use the "personal relationship" terminology don't think a person is a Christian because her mother and father are Christians. We (or most of us) think a person is a Christian because she has been baptized.

---

quote:

---

being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
If he is not a Christian now does that mean that your salvation is dependant on works.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
Robert Mugabe was brought up a Roman Catholic - ie baptized - but given his treatment of his countymen is he a Christian.

---

quote:

---

If he is not a Christian now does that mean that your salvation is dependant on works.

---

quote:

---

Other questions do you have to be a christian to get into heaven ?

---

quote:

---

and if you do what happens to the 1,000,000 aborted children that have had their lives taken away from them in the last 5 years in the UK alone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
To be quite honest I find these threads rather perplexing. I'm more than happy for people to talk about their "personal relationship with Jesus" but the phrase is nowhere used in Sacred Scripture and if people find other expressions to describe their faith, commitment and discipleship to be preferable then I don't really see the problem. What bothers me, I think, is that people seem to subconsciously assume that only a personal relationship with Jesus is proper Christianity

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
To be quite honest I find these threads rather perplexing....What bothers me, I think, is that people seem to subconsciously assume that only a personal relationship with Jesus is proper Christianity and as they are keen to affirm that those who find the language unhelpful are proper Christians they try explaining to them that actually they do have a personal relationship with Jesus. If it works for you it works for you. It doesn't work for everyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Can all you 'baptism only' people tell me how it is that you think a person is a 'proper Christian' who is baptised, never goes to church, grows up to be an atheist and actively denigrates the church - as an example?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
1. believing in a God who knows and cares about you personally, and
2. attempting some form of communication with God through prayer, worship, etc -- will differ with different religious traditions, but I would think prayer would be common across all Christian traditions.

---

quote:

---

So in answer to your question about whether I'd consider you to have a PRWJ, I'd ask (not that you have to answer):

1. Do you pray?
2. Do you have any sense that a God who cares about you hears and answers your prayers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Can all you 'baptism only' people tell me how it is that you think a person is a 'proper Christian' who is baptised, never goes to church, grows up to be an atheist and actively denigrates the church - as an example?

---

I don't know any baptism-only people.

However, the person you described is not a proper Christian, but is both excommunicate and apostate.

---

quote:

---

1. Do you pray?
2. Do you have any sense that a God who cares about you hears and answers your prayers?

---

quote:

---

Just because a term is widely used by a branch of Christianity which tends to be associated with certain views, it is not safe to assume that everyone who uses that phrase shares those views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

It is the fact that you are (presumably) a committed disciple of Jesus.

---

quote:

---

What is so flipping hard to understand about that?

---

quote:

---

(I'm expecting you to tell me that my way of understanding PRWJ wrong, by the way.)

---

quote:

---

There is actually a fascinating and serious historical meaning to the question put in the OP, but I'm beginning to think this is just a thread about having a bash at stupid, fundie Prots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seeker963:


[QUOTE][qb]There is actually a fascinating and serious historical meaning to the question put in the OP, but I'm beginning to think this is just a thread about having a bash at stupid, fundie Prots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

It is the fact that you are (presumably) a committed disciple of Jesus.

---

I'd like to think so. Is that what it means to have a personal relationship? I could be a committed follower of the Buddha (sp?) -- would that mean I had a personal relationship with the Buddha? I could be a committed follower of Tolstoy (there were many such at one time) -- would that mean I had a personal relationship with Tolstoy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Can all you 'baptism only' people tell me how it is that you think a person is a 'proper Christian' who is baptised, never goes to church, grows up to be an atheist and actively denigrates the church - as an example?

---

I don't know any baptism-only people.

However, the person you described is not a proper Christian, but is both excommunicate and apostate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
5) Your analogy with Tolstoy means nothing to me and it's not any kind of an example that I would claim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
To me, faith is a "personal relationship" with God because it is a commitment made by the individual and is not just about passively belonging to a Christian community but not otherwise caring - the personal bit. And it is a "relationship" because it is a two-way interaction between the person and God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
It sounds like baptism makes one wetter but not better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Mousethief, I stated that badly. I meant "do you BELIEVE God cares about you and answers your prayers" rather than "do you have a SENSE that etc." I can see how that might be interpreted as a (very subjective) "feeling" that God cares about you, which obviously can be influenced by a lot of things and may never occur to some people at all (sounds like you are one of those).

---

quote:

---

I think a PRWJ should be based on belief, not emotion or subjective experience, but it's obviously easier to sustain that belief if you have the emotions and the subjective experiences, from time to time.

---

quote:

---

If you don't BELIEVE God hears and answers your prayers, then I don't see the point of praying, or of being a Christian at all.

---

quote:

---

But if you BELIEVE God hears and answers your prayers, even though you don't FEEL that He does, then you are probably a Christian of much greater faith than I am.

---

quote:

---

I can see why you might not call your experience a "personal relationship" and why it might not feel personal to you. I can even see why the term would be offensive to you. But I still think that what you have fits my definition of a PRWJ.

---

quote:

---

I don't get at all the idea that people who use the phrase PRWJ are talking about something exclusive.

---

quote:

---

I believe Buddha, Tolstoy and Macdonald, though wise, are all DEAD.

---

quote:

---

Though I may not always experience the relationship as two-way because I may not have a sense of His presence, I trust that it is NOT a one-way relationship; that He is hearing and caring and responding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
But the person was baptized and that is how you described what is a christian - you did not specify any description - such as excommunicate , apostate, proper etc

---

quote:

---

It sounds like baptism makes one wetter but not better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
It sounds like baptism makes one wetter but not better.

---

Think wheat and tares. It seems from our Lord's parable that both the wheat and the tares are what we would call "in the church" -- baptised, said the sinner's prayer, whatever your idea of what that constitutes. Put as Paul says that's not enough, we must endure to the end.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
I think it more accurate to say of Mugabe that he is a bad Christian than that he isn't a Christian at all (unless he's apostasised and I missed the memo).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
Are you suggesting Perseverance of the Saints?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
It seems to me that people agree here more than they seem to.

---

Oh no. No no no no no. If you think we agree, you clearly don't understand your own position.

Now, let me tell me what you believe, and why you're wrong, wrong, wrong...

(Following some discussion proformas)
 

---

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
I think I do see what you're saying, Mousethief. It has always seemed to me that there are very wide variances between how strongly people experience a sense of God's presence in their lives -- with the mystics on one end, who really believe God speaks audibly to them, and on the other end perhaps people who are more like you, who persevere by faith without any strong feelings or sense of God's presence. I am somewhere in the middle but much more towards your end of the spectrum than the mystical end, having never had the kind of overwhelming sense of God's presence that seems quite common for many Christians to have at least a few times in their lives. However I am very fortunate to have been raised in a tradition where it was very strongly taught that the "relationship with Jesus" was based on faith in His faithfulness, rather than on our own subjective emotions.

Thus I would say that feelings of God's presence, while nice and helpful in maintaining a relationship with Jesus, are by no means the foundation of that relationship.

Did anyone else here ever sing the chorus as a child or young person in church (to the tune of "Yankee Doodle")?

Feelings come and feelings go and feelings are deceiving,
Trust alone in the Word of God, nothing else is worth believing.

(Of course, those in more catholic traditions might wish to substitute "Church of God" in that last line, or interpret "Word" differently than we did in my very very Protestant church!! But I think it would still be making a similar point -- the basis of our faith is NOT a subjective emotional sense of God's presence, but something objective and quite outside ourselves).
 

---

Posted by WatersOfBabylon (# 11893) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
If I am right, when Josephine says "an apostate excommunicate Christian," she doesn't mean that implies that they're saved.

---

Of course you're right. If someone is excommunicate, they have separated themselves from the grace of God; if they're apostate, they have denied Christ. It may be that they will yet be saved (I hope for the salvation of all), but clearly they are not yet so.

Those who have been baptized are Christians, no matter how vile their sins, and they are not baptized again when they repent. Should Mugabe repent of his evil deeds, he will be received back into the communion of the Church the same way anyone else is -- through the sacrament of confession.

It might be simpler if there were no wicked Christians, if we were all perfected in an instant. But, in fact, God in his grace and in his condescension allows the wicked to be in his Church and to be called Christians. I don't always like that fact, but I'm grateful for it.
 

---

Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
Oops -- that was Josephine. She didn't realize that the puter was logged in as Babs.
 

---

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Dobbo:

quote:

---

I do not think bad apple in the barrel defines him, but if you want to be his David Irving....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
I have a real problem with that, because I know people who do not have, and are not capable of having, what you define as a personal relationship with Jesus. They are not capable of making their own commitment to God, or they are not capable of two-way interaction with God, or they are not capable of either one. And yet I trust that such a person is, by the grace of God given to them through their baptism, a Christian just as you are, or as I am. Even though they do not have faith, and may not be capable of faith, the Christian community to which they belong can carry them along. What else can we do? We're called to bear one another's burdens. If they need us to carry them passively along to the throne of God, how could we not do that?

To me, this is not just academic. It is extremely important. It is by grace we're saved.

---

Well, I think "how we are saved" is a completely different issue from “a personal relationship with Jesus”. I don’t think it’s right or proper for us here on earth to decide who gets saved and who doesn’t. I do believe in a gracious God and I think that if we take grace very seriously and our own sinfulness very seriously, then it is logical to believe that God never stops extending grace to us – even if we happen to belong to the wrong strain of Christianity.

By the way, I’m of the view that most of us here are close to being in agreement. I’m not trying to say “Here’s how I’m different and better than you”. I’m simply trying to explain what I get from my tradition.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:
Thanks for that Seeker963, it was very illuminating. I'm still interested to hear the history of this usage if you have it to hand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

I also think that there is a trend in contemporary thinking about religion for 'my experience' to stand proxy for argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

I'm of the opinion that a person can make a conscious, active and genuine commitment to be a disciple of Christ and not have any kind of felt experience for the whole of his or her faith journey.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
First off, thank you for trying to work with me, Trudy, and how polite you're been with it all.

---

MT, I'm hoping you found my attempts polite, as well. I intended them to be that way.

It's very difficult to communicate across religious boundaries sometimes--and even more difficult when describing personal things (even if those personal things are not "felt" as both you and others have pointed out).

I've never found it helpful to use the language of others when it makes no sense to me, especially when there appears to be a claimed meaning for that language that I can't see within the phase itself.

I appreciate that you want to know more about how the rest of us experience this phrase as part of our lives and why you don't feel you share an easy understanding of the phrase.

If it continues to have little or no meaning for you after we've shared our own experiences and definitions, then it might not be something that you can learn through discussion with us.

As I suggested earlier in the thread, perhaps this is an issue that 1) isn't meant to be part of your spiritual life, or 2) will come to you in some other way and you'll know when it does.

Not all spiritual issues can be resolved on a thread. And this may be something that doesn't even need resolution for you.

I guess I'm suggestiong patience--although I don't believe that waiting for an answer is the appropriate way for everyone to seek spiritual knowledge.

I'm not sure how much help I've been, although I had wanted to ease your mind on this. It's clear that most of us have not been abple to provide the answer that can provide you with solid insight.

sabine
 

---

Posted by Prudentius (# 11181) on :
 
I would hope that we would all agree that the spiritual life is not a theory, but something that must be lived. The theoretical approach is like the magic formula: assent to this dogma, endure this ritual, say this prayer, and do MY will, because MY conformity to orthodoxy certainly must have aligned my will to God's.

CS Lewis has written eloquently about how difficult it is to give our will and our life to God, and yet only then can we feel the presence of God in our lives. When things are going well for us this is particularly true.

Hopefully, most of us will have a Spiritual awakening at some point where we are so fortunate as to have a religious experience that is life changing. This usually comes when we are so desperately hurting that we know OUR way does not bring happiness.

There is this wonderful post by Banner Lady that I have resurrected from Limbo:

quote:

---

I had a very personal and life changing encounter with my Saviour 26 years ago. I was newly married, and had just had an argument - a very nasty and circular sort of argument with my spouse. To my disgust he took himself off to bed, and left me to stew in my own poison. I was feeling hurt, misunderstood and extremely disillusioned with his responses. I took myself out on to the balcony to let off some steam. And I remember asking the night sky "What on earth do I do now? I've signed that rotten bit of paper - I'm committed - but all I want to do is run away - what do I do?"

A small thought trickled through my mind - "well, I suppose a Christian would pray." At that stage I had only just begun going to church; but I came back inside, knelt down on the seagrass matting in front of a bomby old armchair and began to tell God exactly how I felt. I had no idea what praying was, and that was the best and most honest thing I could do. And when I had finished, I just sat back on my heels and waited - because I didn't know what else to do.

The only way I can explain what happened next is to say I knew I was not in the room alone. And it felt as though Jesus was sitting in the armchair. The most amazing feeling began to wash over me - I felt enfolded in love. It was like being a small child picked up and sat on His lap and everything negative in me simply drained away. Because that is what overwhelming Love does. Nothing negative can stay in that Presence. One by one He dealt with all my insecurities (and I had a mountain of them) and they drained away too. And when I was totally at peace, the Presence simply faded away.

I sat in the chair for a long time, just amazed. And then, because I was sleepy, I went to bed. In the morning I was the first one awake, and I lay there wondering if it had all been real. But then I felt this vast well of Love inside me that hadn't been there before, and I knew it was.

My other half, however, had known nothing of this, and he opened one eye very gingerly because he didn't know whether he was going to be hit by a pillow, a jug of water, or a barrage of words considering how we had parted company the night before. It is his testimony that I really did encounter something special that night - because he went to bed leaving a screaming shrew behind him and woke up to what was an angel of light by comparison.

Did I SEE Jesus? I had my head bowed and my eyes shut and if you had paid me a million dollars I could not have opened them, I felt so utterly small and unclean. I was such a baby Christian I had not even read all of Genesis - but when I did get to Isaiah, I really understood his words "Woe unto me for I am a man of unclean lips" That's what it is like before God, but
His love is real. His presence is real. Desire it with all your heart.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prudentius:
In her own so very personal way, Banner Lady has shared how it was not until she turned to God in desperation from a feeling of brokenness that she really turned her life over to God. I know that is also true in my own experience. It was obviously true in the experience of St. Augustine. Spirituality is so far much more important than religion, which can only be a pathway to it. And spirituality is most definitely experiential -- not theoretical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prudentius:
I would hope that we would all agree that the spiritual life is not a theory, but something that must be lived. The theoretical approach is like the magic formula: assent to this dogma, endure this ritual, say this prayer, and do MY will, because MY conformity to orthodoxy certainly must have aligned my will to God's.

---

quote:

---

CS Lewis has written eloquently about how difficult it is to give our will and our life to God, and yet only then can we feel the presence of God in our lives.

---

quote:

---

Hopefully, most of us will have a Spiritual awakening at some point where we are so fortunate as to have a religious experience that is life changing.

---

quote:

---

Spirituality is so far much more important than religion, which can only be a pathway to it. And spirituality is most definitely experiential -- not theoretical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I don't have any problem with someone saying, "I don't use this particularly language to describe my experience of God because the language is not resonant or meaningful for me, or because it has negative connotations for me." So I certainly don't mind anyone choosing NOT to say that they have a PRWJ, even if by my definition they have one. What I do object to is someone saying, "I don't like the idea of a PRWJ because it means X, and I don't believe X," when lots of people like me who think we DO have a PRWJ, do not think it means X at all. It's just a strawman argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
I’m also a little surprised that the Orthodox shipmates on this thread aren’t more unanimously in favour of “personal relationship” language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
When I spoke of a personal relationship, I did not have in mind situations where emotion is involved. On the contrary, I think that Orthodox Saints were right to stress that direct and face to face experience of God is "done" without the use of imagination and without the use of emotion. On the contrary, when emotion is involved, it's most probably something that has its origins in man himself, rather than God...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
[QUOTE]e

And now, to paraphrase a Buffy quote:

Random girl: "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?"
Buffy: "Uh, you know, I meant to, I just got really busy."

---

I knew there was a reason that Buffy's my hero
 

---

Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
What's your take MouseThief on 1 Peter 1.8?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
Will nobody answer my question: do the words personal relationship when applied to Jesus mean something quite different than when applied to any other person in our lives?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
But I have never had any direct, face-to-face encounters with God. Does that mean I dn't have a personal relationship with Jesus?

Will nobody answer my question: do the words personal relationship when applied to Jesus mean something quite different than when applied to any other person in our lives? Because all of the definitions so far, except the ones involving direct experience, imply that very strongly, if not presuppose it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
1. If PRWJ means some kind of numinous experience, a Damascus Road type of thing, or some kind of feeling (not necessarily an emotion) inside or hearing a voice, or anything like that, then clearly I do not have a PRWJ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
2. If it doesn't mean that, then I think we must conclude that PRWJ means something quite different than PRWAE.
Will no-one either affirm this, or explain why it is not so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
I think this is a question you have to answer for yourself. What kind of definition do you impose on the term "personal relationship"?

---

quote:

---

Since He apparently doesn't make a habit of materializing in people's living rooms a la Emmaus, then what kind of parameters would you use to circumscribe a "personal realtionship" with someone you (to your best knoweledge) have never met?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
But I have never had any direct, face-to-face encounters with God. Does that mean I dn't have a personal relationship with Jesus?

Will nobody answer my question:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
2. If it doesn't mean that [a numinous experience], then I think we must conclude that PRWJ means something quite different than PRWAE.

Will no-one either affirm this, or explain why it is not so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
ETA One last question: if a PRWJ falls into category 2 above, how can I tell I have a PRWJ and am not just "going through the motions" (an odious phrase meant to castigate people who are Not Like Us, but once it's on the table...).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:


Finally, Mousethief, I don't mind if you disagree with me. I do mind spending time and effort trying to answer your questions and having you repeatedly say that no-one will try to answer your questions. I'm not really sure why it's worth trying to communicate across traditions if what I'm writing is not going to be read.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
I can pray to him and hear him speaking to me personally, not just through a priest or Church institution or whatever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
You describe, Andreas, something precious to the Christian mystical tradition. But why on earth describe it as a personal relationship?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
What's your take MouseThief on 1 Peter 1.8?

---

That he must not be talking to me, because I don't feel any inexpressible and glorious joy. I do love [Jesus], and believe in him. But that's still a one-way thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
But more important, I think, is the fact that the personal relationship language comes with a lot of baggage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
You describe, Andreas, something precious to the Christian mystical tradition. But why on earth describe it as a personal relationship?

---

Because this is what I understand Jesus' saying that they will come and dwell in us to mean. Since they are persons and I am a person, this mutual indwelling is a personal relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
I can pray to him and hear him speaking to me personally, not just through a priest or Church institution or whatever.

---

Would you mind explaining to me a bit more about what you mean by this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Seeker963's definition as a definition for the entire undifferentiated phrase "PRWJ" to me defines it as an idiomatic phrase personalrelationshipwithjesus which does indeed mean something quite different from "personal relationship with anyone else." Which is OK, it just means I have to memorize that definition and abandon trying to relate it to my usual meanings of the individual words.

The Revolutionist's first paragraph above was starting to make sense to me. Especially because it related to ways I might use PRWAE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
But more important, I think, is the fact that the personal relationship language comes with a lot of baggage.

---

Because I live in Athens, personal relationship language to me do not come with a lot of baggage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
I can pray to him and hear him speaking to me personally, not just through a priest or Church institution or whatever.

---

Would you mind explaining to me a bit more about what you mean by this?

---

I don't mean hearing a literal voice in my head, but I believe that the Holy Spirit is at work in me as I read God's word in the Bible, so that God communicates to me truths about himself, encouragement, rebuke, challenge, and so on and so forth.

Church leaders, maturer and wiser Christians, and going along to church are all ways in which God may also speak to me, and through which I become more receptive to listening to God, but it isn't like some mystery religion where your only access to the mysteries of God is through the priests and the temple, or anything like that.

I think that maintaining a sense of both the corporate and individual aspects of our faith is very important. To favour one to the exclusion of the other is unhealthy, imo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
To me - although I might disagree with some details - Revolutionist's overall description is, I think, fairly classic.

---

quote:

---

evangelicals such as myself often use the term "personal relationship" in contrast to, say, a corporate relationship, such as between God and with humanity in general, or in contrast to having to go through another human person or institution as a mediator. Because we all know that you can go directly to God, and priests are unnecessary, and sacraments and saints are just evil and vile things that get in the way of a personal relationship with God, so if you go to a priest to confess your sins instead of confessing directly to God, or if you think the prayers of the saints are of any benefit to you, and you pray to them instead of praying to God, then you don't have a personal relationship with Jesus and aren't really a Christian at all.

It isn't just that Jesus died and rose for mankind in general, he did that for me. And if you haven't had a conversion experience like I had, you're not really a Christian. What's more, I can pray to him and hear him speaking to me personally, not just through a priest or Church institution or whatever. And if you think Church and priest are important to the way you relate to God, you're just flat wrong.
God is at work in my life specifically as well as the world generally. He knows me intimately, and I can have an experience of God myself, rather than it just being for some super-holy religious elite or anything like that. Because, of course, any tradition that has things like monks and nuns and priests and saints believes that God only works in those people, and doesn't work in or care about ordinary people, and if you benighted people would just believe what I believe, and accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior (because, obviously, you know, you haven't done that, since you use incense and icons and your church has a priest that wears funny robes, and you call your priest Father and you all say prayers in unison, which God doesn't like), you could have a personal relationship with Jesus, too, and be just like me, because I'm a real Christian and you, obviously, are not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
And I would argue that the term "a personal relationship with Jesus" has suffered the same fate. It's not just that it is a jargon word, and doesn't mean what the words would be expected to mean in ordinary usage. What bothers me is that the term is extremely offensive, and when I hear it, I don't just have to remind myself (as Autenrieth Road does) that it doesn't mean what it sounds like it means, but I also have to remind myself that the person using it is likely not intending to give offense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
And, since I don't know Revolutionist as well as I know some other Shipmates, I'm not sure whether he means it that way or not. I'd like to believe he doesn't. But it's hard for me to hear it any other way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Josephine, I'm really finding this entire conversation painful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
I’m also a little surprised that the Orthodox shipmates on this thread aren’t more unanimously in favour of “personal relationship” language.

---

Well, for one thing, it's not language that you can find in the Bible, or in the writings of the Fathers or the saints, or in the prayers of the Church.

---

quote:

---

The implicit message is "I have a personal relationship with Christ. You, on the other hand, are not a Christian, even though you think you are." And that message is extremely offensive.

That's clearly not what you mean when you speak of your personal relationship with Jesus. But there are people, many of them, who mean it exactly that way. The words carry that baggage. It seems to me that it would be much easier to find a different way to say what you mean than to rehabilitate this particular expression.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
Here's what I heard when I read Revolutionist's description:

---

quote:

---

evangelicals such as myself often use the term "personal relationship" in contrast to, say, a corporate relationship, such as between God and with humanity in general, or in contrast to having to go through another human person or institution as a mediator. I matter to God! Yes, me, personally! Not because I’m a member of a particular religious group or because I know someone whom God likes, but because God made me and loves me.

It isn't just that Jesus died and rose for mankind in general, he did that for me. God loved me enough to die for me. He loves every single person who has ever been born that much. What's more, I can pray to him and hear him speaking to me personally, not just through a priest or Church institution or whatever. And he cares about what I want to say to him. I don’t need any particular rituals or formulas to ensure a hearing from God – if I find them helpful to me I can use them, but they are there to help me say what I want to say, not to persuade a distant or unwilling God to listen. God already wants to listen to me.
God is at work in my life specifically as well as the world generally. He knows me intimately, and I can have an experience of God myself, rather than it just being for some super-holy religious elite or anything like that. And all that is true even though I know that I’m not a very nice or pious person – in spite of all my faults, what Jesus has done allows me to approach an unspeakably holy God with the same love and trust that an innocent child has to a loving father or mother. God knows how weak I am, and I don’t pretend he’s happy about that, I know he will want to make me better, but even so I need never be scared to approach him because his love is stronger than my faults.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
The exact words “personal relationship” might not be in the Bible, but relational language certainly is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anna B:
Relational language in the Bible supports, to my mind, the notion of a corporate relationship with God or Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Josephine, it was really interesting (though painful, in a way) to read your gloss on The Revolutionist's statement. It made me angry while reading it, because I would have said almost exactly the same things TR said about PRWJ, and I was thinking, "No! That's not what I mean when I say those things!!"

But I realize your post was not about what I say, but about what you hear ... and it's always valuable to get a glimpse into how other people hear what you're saying. In my pre-Ship days it would never in a million years have occurred to me that "personal relationship with Jesus" was a loaded term, or a term that some would see as drawing boundaries. Now I understand the baggage attached to the term a little better ... although I still use it because I find it defines my experience of God better than any other. But at least I'm a little more aware that what others hear when I say it, may not be what I intended to convey.

---

quote:

---

Seeker963 says:
Mousethief, I tried to answer your question several times and at least once directly to you. Please stop saying that no-one is trying to answer your question.

The answer is a very simple - no, not having had a direct face-to-face encounter with God does not mean that you don't have a personal relationship with Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Sabine says,
And if your frame of reference suggests that you do not need to answer the question at all--that your religious life is ok without answering it, then I'm not sure what the problem is.

---

quote:

---

The Revolutionist said:
It isn't just that Jesus died and rose for mankind in general, he did that for me.

---

quote:

---

What's more, I can pray to him and hear him speaking to me personally

---

quote:

---

not just through a priest or Church institution or whatever.

---

quote:

---

Late Paul said:
You seem to be stumbling on the fact that "personal relationship" can mean something different when applied to Jesus than to anyone else.

---

quote:

---

but I wonder if you realise that come across as not willing to accept a definition of "personal relationship with Jesus" unless it makes sense in the same way as "personal relationship with <someone else>" would.

---

quote:

---

The Revolutionist again:
I don't mean hearing a literal voice in my head, but I believe that the Holy Spirit is at work in me as I read God's word in the Bible, so that God communicates to me truths about himself, encouragement, rebuke, challenge, and so on and so forth.

---

quote:

---

Church leaders, maturer and wiser Christians, and going along to church are all ways in which God may also speak to me, and through which I become more receptive to listening to God,

---

quote:

---

but it isn't like some mystery religion where your only access to the mysteries of God is through the priests and the temple, or anything like that.

---

quote:

---

Through an understanding of the story behind Christ's Holy Cross, as protected through Holy Tradition, God comes into our lives, and we develop a personal relationship with God which changes the way we see the world around us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
That isn't the question I was saying nobody answered in the bit you quoted. If you skip ahead to Trudy's answer you will see she actually grabbed the right question, and actually answered it directly. So I know it's possible. I wonder if some people here, through no fault of their own, just aren't understanding what I'm saying because the frames of reference are so different. Which has no doubt affected my ability to understand what they are saying, to the mutual frustration of all.

Nevertheless, I am rather affronted at your suggestion I'm not being genuine. Either call me to Hell or cool it with the personal (as traditionaly meant) accusations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
The word "person" is NOT used in God analogically. Jesus is God-the-Son-appearing-in-the-flesh and NOT a human person. Relating with Jesus is relating with the divine Word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fauja:
When it comes to expressing your point of view about your own spiritual beliefs, there isn't necessarily a right/wrong, correct/incorrect, appropriate/inappropraite way of doing it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:
Still, maybe (hopefully!) the fact that not all feel this joy isn't all down to their being inferior Christians to the apostles.

---

quote:

---

It is hard for me to see how a concept that has only existed for a few hundred years is a necessary part of understanding God's relationship with humankind (or vice versa). Reading it back into the Bible is eisegesis (sp?) of the worst sort.

---

In ecclesiastical jargon we use the term "communion".

Divine Outlaw Dwarf, you said that this is the classical understanding. Can you show that this is accurate? I have not seen any distinction between what a person means in patristic thought as far as God is concerned and as far as man is concerned. A human "individual" is a human person, a divine "individual" is a divine person. What's the difference in the term "person"?

You said we can relate with a human being, Jesus... But Jesus IS NOT A HUMAN BEING. He is a Divine Being (since you want to use the term being in the way ordinary people nowadays use it) Who manifested Himself in the flesh. We can relate with a Divine Being through His human flesh... but we do not relate with a human being (i.e. with a human individual).
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Andreas, I've debated your odd christological formularies with you before. It would be beside the point of this thread to do it here.

The analogical predication of personhood of God is more or less explicit depending on where you think 'classical' stops. It's certainly there explicitly in Aquinas. That's not going to cut much ice with you, I understand. But the point is this: it would simply never have occured to an ancient author to think that we say things of God in the same way that we say them of human beings. Your argument from absence is thus a little odd.

Incidentally, I fail to see how your position on individuality and personhood avoids tritheist heresy.

[ 28. April 2007, 17:32: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
You are grossly misunderstanding what the ancient fathers said.

"we cannot say things of God in the same way that we say them of human beings." This means that WE CANNOT SAY THINGS ABOUT GOD'S NATURE in the same way we say them of the created order. This is very different to say that there are three divine PERSONS, because that term DOES NOT HAVE TO DO WITH A CHARACTERISTIC OF WHO GOD IS. It is merely denoting the Who; it doesn't say anything about the What.

Tritheist heresy? Do you have a clue what you are talking about? In my view you reject trinitarianism as tritheism. In the ancient church tritheism was an onscure monophysite heresy that taught that there are three divine NATURES. It is not a heresy to speak of the trinity the way I do. In fact, this is all the ancient church did. To reject that would be unitarianism.


 

---

Posted by Basket Case (# 1812) on :
 

quote:

---

The phrase is, to me, so clearly offensive that it's hard to take that at face value. I try. But just so those of you who use it know, I'm not the only person who reacts this way to that particular expression.

---

quote:

---

Still, maybe (hopefully!) the fact that not all feel this joy isn't all down to their being inferior Christians to the apostles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
... But Jesus IS NOT A HUMAN BEING. He is a Divine Being (since you want to use the term being in the way ordinary people nowadays use it) Who manifested Himself in the flesh. We can relate with a Divine Being through His human flesh... but we do not relate with a human being (i.e. with a human individual).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
DOES NOT HAVE TO DO WITH A CHARACTERISTIC OF WHO GOD IS

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:

I did ask what I thought was a very straightforward, uncomplicated, yes-or-no question. Hoping for a yes-or-no answer. In PRWJ is PR being used in a different way than PRWAE? Having someone give yet again their understanding of PRWJ doesn't answer the question. The answer to a yes-or-no question is "Yes" or "No."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I think it means something along the lines of "A person is not a Christian because her mother and father are Christians. A person is a Christian because she has developed her own friendship with God in Christ."

---

Which just moves the question into new words. What is a personal relationship with Christ? What does that look like? What is my own friendship with God in Christ? What would that look like?

How can anybody tell by looking at another whether they have this "personal relationship" with Jesus?

How can I tell by looking at myself whether I have this "personal relationship" with Jesus?

If I'm told over and over that I must have this "personal relationship" in order to be saved, but nobody tells me how I can determine whether or not I have it, I'm kind of in a perpetual panic mode. If I don't have it, I won't be saved, but I can never tell if I do have it.

I know there are people who (according to their own reports, which I have no reason to doubt) really feel the presence of God in their lives. I have no such feeling. I have heard many other people, of various levels of devoutness (according, again, to their own reports) say they believe themselves to be Christian, and yet have no such feeling.

It seems to me the language of "personal relationship" does more harm than good. Yes, you're not a Christian just because your parents were. Nevertheless an undefined "personal relationship" is an impossible criterion to apply usefully. Perhaps it's time to put it on the shelf.

---

quote:

---

Prayer is the key and cornerstone of our relationship with our Lord. Without prayer, there is no relationship with God. The "Good News" of the Gospel is that the unknowable and faceless God of the Old Testament has revealed Himself to the world; through the Incarnation of Jesus, God now has a "face"; through the Person of Jesus Christ we can enter a personal relationship with God. (John 14:6). Through prayer we can enter into this relationship with God; through prayer He reveals His will to us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
You said we can relate with a human being, Jesus... But Jesus IS NOT A HUMAN BEING. He is a Divine Being (since you want to use the term being in the way ordinary people nowadays use it) Who manifested Himself in the flesh.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
I think Orthodox Christians know exactly what a personal relationship with God is - at least going by this website quote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
The exact words “personal relationship” might not be in the Bible, but relational language certainly is.

---

If that's what you mean, personal language is used throughout our prayers and services. So, for example, The Akathist of Thanksgiving, The Akathist to the Sweetest Lord Jesus, and akathist prayers to the saints (like this one to my patron, St. Joseph the Betrothed) are intensely, poetically, personal.

We don't have any problem at all with personal language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
It's because I know that Orthodoxy cherishes such prayers as those, that I was surprised to see any Orthodox antipathy to the words "personal relationship with Jesus".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
I think Orthodox Christians know exactly what a personal relationship with God is - at least going by this website quote.

---

Yes, because of course (A) every website that claims to be Orthodox is;

Can you see why your claim is offensive?

---

quote:

---

WE ARE NOT HERE JUST FOR OUR OWN PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS CHRIST, BUT TO SHARE THAT RELATIONSHIP WITH ALL OTHER PEOPLE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
from American Carpatho Russian Orthodox Dicese of the USA

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fauja:
When it comes to expressing your point of view about your own spiritual beliefs, there isn't necessarily a right/wrong, correct/incorrect, appropriate/inappropraite way of doing it.

---

Sometimes, yes there is. If my way of describing my spiritual beliefs results in my talking nonsense, for example. If I believe that God can create a stone too heavy for God to lift. Or if I say, 'God is a square circle', you can pull me up on it. In spite of the supposed sanctity, in these days of consumer spirituality, of 'my way of expressing my beliefs', you would be correct so to do.

---

quote:

---

And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

---

quote:

---

I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
I know that they are orthodox because it is in the links from your own church website.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fauja:
Again in Ephesians 1:17, Paul prays:

quote:

---

I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.

---

How can knowing him better mean anything other than something personal?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
To me - although I might disagree with some details - Revolutionist's overall description is, I think, fairly classic.

---

Here's what I heard when I read Revolutionist's description:

quote:

---

evangelicals such as myself often use the term "personal relationship" in contrast to, say, a corporate relationship, such as between God and with humanity in general, or in contrast to having to go through another human person or institution as a mediator. Because we all know that you can go directly to God, and priests are unnecessary, and sacraments and saints are just evil and vile things that get in the way of a personal relationship with God, so if you go to a priest to confess your sins instead of confessing directly to God, or if you think the prayers of the saints are of any benefit to you, and you pray to them instead of praying to God, then you don't have a personal relationship with Jesus and aren't really a Christian at all.

It isn't just that Jesus died and rose for mankind in general, he did that for me. And if you haven't had a conversion experience like I had, you're not really a Christian. What's more, I can pray to him and hear him speaking to me personally, not just through a priest or Church institution or whatever. And if you think Church and priest are important to the way you relate to God, you're just flat wrong.
God is at work in my life specifically as well as the world generally. He knows me intimately, and I can have an experience of God myself, rather than it just being for some super-holy religious elite or anything like that. Because, of course, any tradition that has things like monks and nuns and priests and saints believes that God only works in those people, and doesn't work in or care about ordinary people, and if you benighted people would just believe what I believe, and accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior (because, obviously, you know, you haven't done that, since you use incense and icons and your church has a priest that wears funny robes, and you call your priest Father and you all say prayers in unison, which God doesn't like), you could have a personal relationship with Jesus, too, and be just like me, because I'm a real Christian and you, obviously, are not.

---

And, since I don't know Revolutionist as well as I know some other Shipmates, I'm not sure whether he means it that way or not. I'd like to believe he doesn't. But it's hard for me to hear it any other way.

---

quote:

---

I am saying that I object to the phrase, "a personal relationship with Jesus," because in my experience, those who use it define it in a particularly narrow way. In my experience, having a personal relationship with Jesus is defined as having had a conversion experience, holding an inerrantist view of Scriptures, and using exclusively extemporaneous prayers. Furthermore, in my experience, the definition specifically excludes any relationship with Jesus that is communal and liturgical, and of which tradition and ritual are important components. Therefore, the use of this term, in my experience, can normally be understood as saying, "I have a personal relationship with Jesus. I am a Christian. You don't. You aren't."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I still don't see why "personal" in this context has to be opposed to corporate. As I said before, to me the opposite of "personal" in this context would be "impersonal" -- i.e. a Deist concept of God, remote and uninterested in my life. I wouldn't expect a Deist to have a PRWJ. But I have always assumed that Catholics and Orthodox and all other kinds of devout Christians had PRsWJ even if they did not use that language to describe it. The greater emphasis on the corporate experience (which is important too, even in most evangelical Protestant traditions), and even the use of priests as mediators, does nothing (in my mind) to decrease the "personal" nature of the individual's relationship with Jesus. It is both personal AND corporate -- we share it and deepen it through worshipping with other believers -- neither excludes the other.

---

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Personal as opposed to impersonal is probably a better contrast.
 

---

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
Josephine, thanks for your last post; I found it very clear and easy to get what you were saying (though sad, because I am really unhappy with people who use religious language to draw boundaries and keep others outside), and I think this whole thread has been, for me, a really useful illustration of how much baggage can be carried by what may seem to one person to be quite innocuous language.
 

---

Posted by Hermes66 (# 12156) on :
 
I do not attend a church, so of necessity my relationship with Jesus IS a personal one.

Faith is personal, even if it's professed openly each week in front of other people, or even daily: it pertains to YOU and your understanding of your divinity. Surely each of us here has had direct experience of Him speaking to us, directly to our hearts? To me, that's extremely personal (especially when it's unexpected, unbidden and revelatory).

Then, I am not one for doctrine: I just read the New Testament every day and try to live by Jesus' rules. Sitting in church would drive me crazy; I feel closer to Him when I'm doing ordinary things with others, or when alone with my thoughts. On reflection, I feel near Him most of the time. I can't really describe the feeling but it 'feels' good. Which is an extremely intimate and personal experience.


 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I admire those who have the personal discipline to have an entirely individual experience of faith. For me, and others like me, it is necessary to have a corporate experience, otherwise it probably just wouldn't happen.
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
...

The problem, of course, is that language is a social construct, not an individual one. It exists between people, and is based on mutual understanding and experience. You and I both know what we mean by blue, or milk or by any number of other words. When you order coffee at a restaurant, you know what you'll be getting, because your experience with the use of the word has taught you to associate it with a particular dark beverage. That's how language works.

Unfortunately, my experience with the use of the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus" has taught me to associate it with the beliefs I outlined earlier. I can't hear the phrase apart from my experience of when and how and why and by whom it was used, any more than I can hear "coffee" apart from my experience of that word.

You have added something to my experience of the word -- but, sadly, I can't trust that the next person who uses it will mean by it what you mean by it.

It could be that, over time, people like you can take the word back, rehabilitate it, and the people who use it as abuse will have to find a new term to use. There's a wonderful short story about a black man who does exactly that with the Confederate battle flag. It's possible.

---

It's a bit like the word "Christian" used by some super zapped up extremo Proddies which excludes most of my friends who are Christian: Anglicans, Catholics et sim.

My most personal time with Jesus is when I receive Holy Communion. N-O-T-H-I-N-G matches it.

And I don't give a hoot what the Rev'd Jedediah Bludger of The Ghastly Last Remnant Christian Loony Tune Church of Vulture, Colorado thinks!

May God bless and protect traditional, sane, mainstream Christianity from the self-appointed evangelists of "trooth" and bring the moronic machinations of the latter to naught!


 

---

Posted by Hermes66 (# 12156) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
I admire those who have the personal discipline to have an entirely individual experience of faith. For me, and others like me, it is necessary to have a corporate experience, otherwise it probably just wouldn't happen.

---

I'm just a coward: I couldn't face a whole congregation of people and profess my faith. I'm coming out in a cold sweat just thinking about it.

Also, I like all the old tunes I grew up with, the old liturgy I had at school, the old way of saying Our Father, a solemn 'High' Mass: you don't get much of that round here, I'm afraid. I seem to be in a sea of Prosperity Gospel churches and I cannot subscribe to that, given Christ's chosen poverty and work with the outsiders. Add to that a family of atheists and scoffers, I'm a very quiet follower of Jesus - though when pushed I will talk about my faith, much to the bemusement / shame of my relatives...

I am the lost sheep of the family because I found Jesus - how very ironic.


 

---

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
And I don't give a hoot what the Rev'd Jedediah Bludger of The Ghastly Last Remnant Christian Loony Tune Church of Vulture, Colorado thinks!

May God bless and protect traditional, sane, mainstream Christianity from the self-appointed evangelists of "trooth" and bring the moronic machinations of the latter to naught!

---

See, this is the kind of discourse that really builds bridges within the Body of Christ.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Just another personal story of personal antipathy to the phrase, "personal relationship with Jesus". The guy from the local Baptist church who came round my door one day a few years ago asked me if I had "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." I said that I had, but didn't call it that, and unpacked that a bit, explaining that I was an Episcopalian. He said that I did not then have that sort of relationship, and implied that Episcopal Church was the next step over to Rome. Interestingly, he also asked me if I "knew for sure" that I was going to Heaven when I died. I said, I hoped so, but to say I was sure seemed presumptuous to me, as it wasn't going to be my judgment call, was it? So no, I didn't "know" that. Also, I said, while resurrrection at the last day is promised, it wasn't at all clear what was going to be going on in the middle time between death and resurrection. It all went rather downhill from there...
 

---

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hermes66:
Surely each of us here has had direct experience of Him speaking to us, directly to our hearts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hermes66:
Surely each of us here has had direct experience of Him speaking to us, directly to our hearts?

---

Ummm, no. There are many Christians who have never had any such experience, ever. These are often the folks who have a great problem with the expression "personal relationship with Jesus," because they expect that, with such a relationship, they should have such feelings and experiences, and they don't.

---

Oh, I'm sorry to assume. *cringes.

Some people have enormous Faith, then, to carry on without an external sign of encouragement from Him. I would assume the 'fuzzy touchy feely PRWJ' accounts must be sorely trying, in those circumstances.



 

---

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

For those who use the phrase PRWJ, or for whom the phrase makes sense in a helpful way -- would "personal relationship with God" or "personal relationship with God the Father" or "personal relationship with the Holy Spirit" mean the same things? Similar things? Mostly different things?

---

I don't tend to use the term PRWJ, but I do use the terms "personal relationship with God/Holy Spirit/Universe."

I have theological reasons for using those words rather than PRWJ--even though the ministry of Jesus has affected me profoundly. And I don't want to start a tangent by getting into who Christ is to me, etc.

Since PRWJ is used so widely, AR, is substituting words here adding to the confusion or making things clearer? I'm not sure. Good of you to offer, though.

sabine
 

---

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
I don't mean to be actually proposing a substitute phrase one way or the other. I'm curious about how people will answer, so I can try to understand the phrase (and the ideas people mean by it) better by understanding what it relates to and how.

[ 30. April 2007, 14:55: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I would use the phrase "a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit", just like the ancient Church used the phrase "God created the Universe through His Word in His Spirit"...
 

---

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
andreas, that wording works just fine for me.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
A simple question: do you talk to Jesus in your prayers?

If so, this is both personal and relational.

Who needs theology when you can just have faith?
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Dobbo:

quote:

---

Callan I am sorry about the post I made - that could have been read in a different way than intended and as I said if you had wanted to you could have taken me to that warm place for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A simple question: do you talk to Jesus in your prayers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Just another personal story of personal antipathy to the phrase, "personal relationship with Jesus". The guy from the local Baptist church who came round my door one day a few years ago asked me if I had "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." I said that I had, but didn't call it that, and unpacked that a bit, explaining that I was an Episcopalian. He said that I did not then have that sort of relationship, and implied that Episcopal Church was the next step over to Rome. Interestingly, he also asked me if I "knew for sure" that I was going to Heaven when I died. I said, I hoped so, but to say I was sure seemed presumptuous to me, as it wasn't going to be my judgment call, was it? So no, I didn't "know" that. Also, I said, while resurrection at the last day is promised, it wasn't at all clear what was going to be going on in the middle time between death and resurrection. It all went rather downhill from there...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
I would use the phrase "a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit", just like the ancient Church used the phrase "God created the Universe through His Word in His Spirit"...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A simple question: do you talk to Jesus in your prayers?

If so, this is both personal and relational.

Who needs theology when you can just have faith?

---

The reason you need theology and not just faith should be clear if you read the above and replace Jesus with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
But, Josephine: Once you've been touched by his noodly appendage, you're never the same.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Unfortunately, the statement, 'I don't need theology in my relationship with Jesus, because I have faith' looks very much like a theological statement.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Forgive me, for I didn't mean to diss theology per se. I think I was alluding to the simplicity of faith that can be had even if one is steeped in theology - a faith that can simply say that one 'talks to Jesus'.

I am more than aware, Andreas, that 'communion', as you put it, is more than talking, but one cannot escape the fact that we all approach God with words, that Jesus himself used words and that he taught us some words to pray.

My point was simply this - that if one can pray to God as an individual talks to another individual - (like Moses spoke as a friend to a friend) then that signifies 'personal relationship'.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I am more than aware, Andreas, that 'communion', as you put it, is more than talking, but one cannot escape the fact that we all approach God with words, that Jesus himself used words and that he taught us some words to pray.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
The reason you need theology and not just faith should be clear if you read the above and replace Jesus with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I am more than aware, Andreas, that 'communion', as you put it, is more than talking, but one cannot escape the fact that we all approach God with words, that Jesus himself used words and that he taught us some words to pray.

---

Words are the first step in our journey... We can go beyond words and "pray with the heart", praying at all times undisturbed by what takes place around us...

Christ used words, but those words where shades of the truth the Holy Spirit was supposed to effect on in Pentecost. He even taught us some words to pray, but he didn't define the wholeness of praying that way.

---

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mudfrog:
So people who use words are at the first stage of the journey, whereas you are so much further on? Interesting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So people who use words are at the first stage of the journey, whereas you are so much further on? Interesting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
And I don't give a hoot what the Rev'd Jedediah Bludger of The Ghastly Last Remnant Christian Loony Tune Church of Vulture, Colorado thinks!

May God bless and protect traditional, sane, mainstream Christianity from the self-appointed evangelists of "trooth" and bring the moronic machinations of the latter to naught!

---

See, this is the kind of discourse that really builds bridges within the Body of Christ.

---

Let her who is perfect, if not a Perfect 10, cast the first stone, O Divinely Scrumtous One.

Preferably with a maturity level above that of a 10 year old.

But then again, I suppose you're being yourself!


 

---

Posted by Fauja (# 2054) on :
 
I had a conversation with a Christian woman recently who referred to God as her 'honey-bunny'! PRWJ, it seems to me, is quite mild by comparison but I can see how a lot of the problems outlined in this thread have much to do with association of words with bad experiences and not just the words themselves.

Sometimes it's hard to break through that 'Me and Jesus are getting on just fine without you , thank you!' attitude that I find a challenge but then again, if we're really honest about it, none of us are perfect and we can all allow our personal preferences to get in the way of harmonious relations with God.
 

---

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
I'm not perfect, Sir Pellinore, but I don't think name-calling and making fun of people whose "brand" of Christianity differs from ours, does anything to advance the cause of Christian unity. Much of this thread has been devoted to Christians from more catholic traditions saying that they feel their traditions and practice have been vilified and demeaned by those who use the term "personal relationship with Jesus" in a particular way. I felt that your post was doing the same thing from the opposite direction. Sorry if my method of pointing it out sounded like a 10-year-old, but derisive name calling, especially when done by Christians, of other Christians, irritates me.
 

---

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I felt that your post was doing the same thing from the opposite direction. Sorry if my method of pointing it out sounded like a 10-year-old, but derisive name calling, especially when done by Christians, of other Christians, irritates me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
For those who use the phrase PRWJ, or for whom the phrase makes sense in a helpful way -- would "personal relationship with God" or "personal relationship with God the Father" or "personal relationship with the Holy Spirit" mean the same things?

---

I'd tend to say "personal relationship with God". I don't think you could have a relationship with one Person of the Trinity and not involve the others - the Son and the Spirit point us to the Father and he is known through them. That's not to say that a "personal relationship with God the Father" or "with the Holy Spirit" (or "with Jesus") aren't meaningful expressions - I think they are, very much so - just that for me "personal relationship with God covers it all.

I suppose the reason to emphasise Jesus as the Person with whom one has the relationship is that Jesus is both a human person with whom to relate, and is also a particularly good, and uniquely Christian, illustration of what God is like. To emphasise Jesus, a person who really lived as a human amongst humans, and loved us and died for us, contrasts with the (supposed) picture of God as distant or apathetic which is being rejected when someone asserts a personal relationship.

(I stress that I do not think that someone's idea of God is of a distant or apathetic being, simply because they do not use or like the expression "personal relationship").
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
It sounded incredibly juvenile, TS.

Life is not Cloud Cuckoo Land. There are some very, very nasty people there posing as "Christians". I avoid them like the plague.

"Save yourself and the world lies at your feet". St Augustine.

Josephine: you are not the host in this thread.
 

---

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
I don't see what Josephine was doing that elicited that response, Sir P. She said or did nothing host-like -- nor did I; I was responding to you as a Shipmate involved in the discussion, not as a host. I know there are some unpleasant Christians, of all denominational stripes. I still don't think that caricaturing and mocking someone else's form of Christianity (while clearly labelling yourself as part of "traditional, sane, mainstream Christianity" to show that you're on the "right" side of this particular boundary) is helpful or useful.

I'm sorry you didn't like my use of sarcasm to criticize your mockery, but I guess either one -- my sarcasm, or your mockery -- might be considered childish, depending on one's perspective.

Guess we will have to disagree on the appropriateness of name-calling. I once wrote an angry letter to a conservative Christian radio ministry taking them to task for using mocking and derisive language on their program to caricature non-Christians, liberals, and other people they disagreed with -- in much the same tone, though less inflammatory language, that you just used to caricature conservative evangelicals. Someone at the ministry wrote me back a long and articulate email defending the use of derisive, demeaning language with examples ranging from St. Paul to Martin Luther and touching on a variety of other famous Christians. So I guess that kind of discourse has its place, but I do think it hurts more than it helps.
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Maybe it might help to hear the voices of some very traditional Christians, some Roman Catholic nuns who sing very beautifully some hymns that are often not sung any more, but which show the personal relationship with Jesus that can develop between Jesus and any Christian, regardless of the "churchmanship" or other approach to Christ that the Church takes.

I would like to recommend trying to listen here to the brief samples of hymns on those nuns' album "I need Thee":

Daughters of Mary

These hymn samples are brief, but you can hear the gentle emotions of the nuns as they sing, and to me it shows how one develops that "personal relationship" in spite of oneself sometimes, no matter how one initially approaches Our Lord in prayer. The third sample, "Good Night, Sweet Jesus" will illustrate what I'm talking about.

Best wishes, Mary
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
What about this:

Jesus, the very thought of thee
with sweetness fills my breast;
But sweeter far thy face to see
And in thy presence rest.

(Bernard of Clairvaux)

It's personal, it's a relationship, and it's with Jesus.
But it doesn't have to be so 'intimate'. It can be a brotherly thing.
 

---

Posted by Amethyst (# 11068) on :
 
Yes indeed, Mudfrog, good example.

I have hesitated to join in the discussion, but have read through this thread with some sadness, as I didn’t realise how much baggage the phrase had for some Christians. I would tend not to use such a phrase these days (mostly because it sounds naff) although it reflects jargon which was used in my con-evo days.

I can say that my own ‘conversion experience’ (whatever you want to call it) meant that before it I did not know God; after it I was absolutely convinced that God knew me, in a caring, loving and personal way. This was the start of the journey for me – but everyone experiences their own journey, not mine.

As others have shown, the idea (if not the language) of a PRWJ has existed from the very beginning. As I Peter 5:7 says, ‘cast all your anxieties upon him, for he cares for you.’ Sounds pretty personal to me.

Perhaps andreas1984’s phrase was best: a personal relationship with God, through Jesus, in the Holy Spirit.

By the way, Leetle Masha, thanks for that link – the nuns certainly do sing beautifully.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0