Good morning all. My Protestant friends--we Catholics on this forum are always asked for scriptural references for some of our beliefs. A lot of times we provide a chapter and verse to support a belief but like many things in scripture we are told that we are not interpreting it correctly. So, in the event I have missed it, or misinterpreted it, could you 1) provide the chapter/verse that clearly states that one must have a "personal relationship" with Christ and 2) the chapter/verse you THINK supports this.

Good morning all. My Protestant friends--we Catholics on this forum are always asked for scriptural references for some of our beliefs. A lot of times we provide a chapter and verse to support a belief but like many things in scripture we are told that we are not interpreting it correctly. So, in the event I have missed it, or misinterpreted it, could you 1) provide the chapter/verse that clearly states that one must have a "personal relationship" with Christ and 2) the chapter/verse you THINK supports this.
You will not find a verse that says it. It is an issue I commonly harp on my brethren about.

However, there is no denying that person's relationship to God and Christ is deeply personal, if nothing else because of the fact that we experience grace and mercy as individuals. On top of that, we are adopted into God's family.

Here is a blog post by a Southern Baptist that I more or less agree with regarding the whole phrase.

Rethinking our Vocabulary: “Personal Relationship with Jesus” | Said at Southern (http://saidatsouthern.com/rethinking-our-vocabulary-personal-relationship-with-jesus/)

Thanks for responding Z. I commonly listen and watch many Protestant sermons. This term is a go-to term for ALL OF THEM. While everyone should strive for a personal relationship with our Lord, I simply wanted to point out that the term, used by virtually all evangelicals, especially used as a question when trying to convert other, is not scriptural.

Thanks for responding Z. I commonly listen and watch many Protestant sermons. This term is a go-to term for ALL OF THEM. While everyone should strive for a personal relationship with our Lord, I simply wanted to point out that the term, used by virtually all evangelicals, especially used as a question when trying to convert other, is not scriptural.

I know where you are coming from. I don't use it in evangelism as it makes little sense to the unconverted.

I feel the same way about "ask Jesus into your heart". That's a hard thing to do when the Scripture says the unconverted person cannot understand spiritual things and that the gospel is foolishness to them.

I love how David Platt, pastor of Brookhills Church, talks about responding to the Gospel.

"We already have a fairly high view of our morality, so when we add a superstitious prayer, a subsequent dose of church attendance, and obedience to some of the Bible, we feel pretty sure that we will be all right in the end.

The modern-day gospel says, “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. Therefore, follow these steps, and you can be saved.” Meanwhile, the biblical gospel says, “You are an enemy of God, dead in your sin, and in your present state of rebellion, you are not even able to see that you need life, much less to cause yourself to come to life. Therefore, you are radically dependent on God to do something in your life that you could never do.”

The former sells books and draws crowds. The latter saves souls. Which is more important?"

"That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love," - Ephesians 3:17

This is the closest I can find as to having Jesus in your heart. Perhaps someone would like to expound on this?


Insofar as a personal relationship with God is concerned, would not the parallel of father and son be appropiate enough to warrant a close bond?

"For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." - Romans 8:15-17

And isn't this readily apparent in the parable of the prodigal?

How much more personal can you get?

Personal relationship with Christ

I commonly listen and watch many Protestant sermons. This term is a go-to term for ALL OF THEM. While everyone should strive for a personal relationship with our Lord,


The thing is that every person does have a personal relationship with God and there is no way to not have one.

Sinners and rebellious people might have a troubled or even a negative relationship with God but it is still a relationship, because God is the Father of all.

The message would be more accurate if they would say it something like this:

You need to have a better or improved relationship with God, or with His Christ.



I simply wanted to point out that the term, used by virtually all evangelicals, especially used as a question when trying to convert other, is not scriptural.


There are lots of popular saying that come as a paraphrase from the Bible.

I like this one:

Love the sinner but not the sin. Said by Saint Augustine.

Hate the sin and not the sinner. Said by the Mahatma Gandhi.

Love thy enemy. Said by Jesus Christ.

:coffee:

Good morning all. My Protestant friends--we Catholics on this forum are always asked for scriptural references for some of our beliefs. A lot of times we provide a chapter and verse to support a belief but like many things in scripture we are told that we are not interpreting it correctly. So, in the event I have missed it, or misinterpreted it, could you 1) provide the chapter/verse that clearly states that one must have a "personal relationship" with Christ and 2) the chapter/verse you THINK supports this.
Since our relationship with God is personal or one on one, no one else can make us get saved. It's solely our choice so it's called a "personal" relationship. The concept of it is repeatedly inferred in the Bible just as the "Trinity" is so don't discount it.

Jesus said if we'll knock, He'll open the door and He will "come in"; In where? Into our hearts, metaphorically speaking.

The Bible uses a LOT of different grammatical wordings, so people need to know how to "discern" when each of them are used. It uses: Literalisms, parables, metaphors, hyperboles, similies & fantasy word images.

[ Personal relationship with Christ ]

I simply wanted to point out that the term, used by virtually all evangelicals, especially used as a question when trying to convert other, is not scriptural.

The Protestants actually say a personal relationship with God, but either way you are correct that it is not scriptural, and in the most basic of ways it is a completely wrong interpretation of the scriptures.

Every person already has a personal relationship with God and thereby with Christ, so that even an individual's death does not separate that relationship.

The thing about this that truly troubles me is the pompous claim that they (the self righteous Christians) are the only ones who have a relationship with God, as if God is NOT the Father and creator and overseer of all humanity which He is.

God has a relationship with the Devil, and God has a relationship with sinners, and with Demons, so the claim of some exclusive relationship with God by the "born-again" Christians is just vain glory and pompous pretension.

Luke 4:41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%204:40-42&version=KJV)

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:18-20&version=KJV)

The thing is that some people will have a healthier and more productive of a relationship, while others have a more destructive and negative relationship with God.

:coffee:

The Protestants actually say a personal relationship with God, but either way you are correct that it is not scriptural, and in the most basic of ways it is a completely wrong interpretation of the scriptures.

Every person already has a personal relationship with God and thereby with Christ, so that even an individual's death does not separate that relationship.

The thing about this that truly troubles me is the pompous claim that they (the self righteous Christians) are the only ones who have a relationship with God, as if God is NOT the Father and creator and overseer of all humanity which He is.

God has a relationship with the Devil, and God has a relationship with sinners, and with Demons, so the claim of some exclusive relationship with God by the "born-again" Christians is just vain glory and pompous pretension.

Luke 4:41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%204:40-42&version=KJV)

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:18-20&version=KJV)

The thing is that some people will have a healthier and more productive of a relationship, while others have a more destructive and negative relationship with God.

:coffee:Of course, all interaction between persons can be called a relationship of some sort. But, nobody has a personal relationship with the King except His people who are adopted into His family.

How can you claim to rightly interpret the Scriptures when you don't even believe them? Ridiculous.

Of course, all interaction between persons can be called a relationship of some sort. But, nobody has a personal relationship with the King except His people who are adopted into His family.


I say it appears that you are just creating an argument for the sake of argument, but I will take the bait anyway.

Of course every person has a personal relationship with their own King, just as every person in Britain is a subject of the King (or Queen as is the case).

But even the enemies of Great Britain have a personal relationship with the British monarchy because to war against Britain means to war against its monarch.

Here the President of the USA is the President of all Americans, even the President of everyone who voted against him and to those who did not vote.

The same is true for the King of Kings, in that God's enemies or rebels or sinners still have their own personal relationship to their God King as their true enemy.

Reference Jesus Christ saying to = Love thy enemies, as God loves His ... (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:43-48&version=KJV)

Us people simply are not in charge even though most people see themselves as having such authority, as people can not truly reject God or separate from God as we are the subordinates and He is the overlord to us all whether anyone likes it or not.



How can you claim to rightly interpret the Scriptures when you don't even believe them? Ridiculous.


In this thread then I am the one (of us two) who is giving Bible text to demonstrate that my claims are accurate and true.

As to being "ridiculous" then I declare that word is nowhere to be found in any Bible translation, which is very much like the sad reality that no where in the Bible does it exclude any person from having their own personal relationship with God.

FYI.

:howdy: