Adding 'Personal Savior' to the Gospel

The following is a quote from the late Keith Green which I got from the Lastdaysministries website.

I still hear 'personal Savior.' I think of it more as a '70's and '80's thing, but some churches and preaches still say it. If Keith Green said or wrote this today, he might write about 'It's not a religion; it's a personal relationship.' That's not what the apostles said when they tried to win a crowd of people to Christ. And 'personal Savior' does not show up in the Bible.

I have a pen. It is my personal property. If I don't want to let anyone else use it, I could refuse them access, because it is my personal property. I have no such rights when it comes to Christ. I heard preaching-- probably last in the 1980's, that actually explained a rationale behind the use of 'personal Savior'-- that the gospel and salvation affects you personally. It is not enough that you acknowledge Christ as the Savior of the world. You must repent and believe in Him 'personally.' I guess that makes sense, but it does not seem to justify the way 'personal Savior' was codified as a phrase used as a mark of orthodoxy. But 'personal Savior' is used without an explanation.

What are the fruits of evangelicals focusing so much on 'personal.' I wonder if all those unchurched people out there who, if you ask them about their relationship with God, will object that their religion is 'personal' and they do not want to talk about it got this idea from American evangelicals obsession with preaching on 'personal Savior' and 'personal relationship'? These are phrases and an an area of emphasis (personal) that I can't even find in the New Testament.

I wonder if this influences the growth of (often unspiritual) people identifying themselves as 'spiritual but not religious.'

As I have pointed out on another thread, there are churches where a pastor may or may not mention the cross, does not mention the resurrection at all, and does not explain who Jesus is, but then tells them that Christianity is not a religion but a relationship, and asks people to mention a prayer that mentions Jesus and declares them saved for doing so.

I was listening to Acts 2 this morning and noticing, again, that Peter doesn't even preach on the atonement. He puts the blame for Christ's crucifixion on the crowd, but spends much of his sermon persuading his audience that Jesus rose from the dead. Later, the Saducees were upset that he and John preached, through Jesus, the resurrection of the dead. Why does the 'personal' issue get so much focus when it isn't even in the Bible, but the resurrection is so often omitted?

Nogt cetain but I believe I have been hearing the term, personal Savior, for , well, all my life.

No those words together are not in the Word, but Jesus, Yeshua, did die for me, and that is personal and beloved and wonderful. Oh, He died for all who believe Him, knowing each by name. God bless all……..j

why the big fuss about it?

doesn't it simply mean a person comes to Christ as an individual, having made a 'personal' decision?

I can't say I have heard the term being abused or added to scripture

some people think they are a Christian because their parents were or stated they were

throughout scripture we read about God dealing with people on an individual basis so no, I don't find this to be a problem

Jesus says that our Father knows the number of hairs on our head

that's pretty personal

I think Keith Green hit the nail on the head. People don't know why you are throwing in the word 'personal', and it makes the message harder to understand. He calls it 'double talk'. The emphasis is not the Biblical emphasis, either. Usually the phrase is thrown out there with no explanation as to what is meant by 'personal' or why it is significant. Using the phrase has probably led to unchurched people who heard a sermon or prayed a prayer at a church once who do not want to talk to someone about Jesus because religion is supposed to be 'personal.'

The apostles did not say it as far as we know from the Bible.

And of course there is the problem of preachers preaching 'personal Saviour' and 'personal relationship not religion'-- instead of the Gospel which seems to be the norm in many churches. The audience hears about Jesus being personal instead of Jesus the Son of God, the Messiah, Who died for our sins and rose from the dead.

I read what you quoted from Keith Green and frankly it makes me wonder about the churches some people went to

I bet the Apostles said many many things that are not written in the Bible

should we only say exactly what is in the Bible?

I am not getting the problem here. I can only conclude I went to a very different church where salvation was explained and the gospel was understood

I suppose a person can make a point about just about anything and then supply it with what they believe supports it

as an aside to the above post, I will add that I don't refer to Christ as my 'personal Savior' and I don't ask people if they have accepted Him as their personal Savior

is this an American thing?

I googled the phrase and found many articles about it and people seem to be making a fuss about it...well some anyway

smh

If you confess that Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised him from death, you will be saved. For it is by our faith that we are put right with God; it is by our confession that we are saved. (Romans 10:9-10)

Since you have accepted Christ Jesus as Lord, live in union with him. Keep your roots deep in him, build your lives on him, and become stronger in your faith, as you were taught. And be filled with thanksgiving. (Colossians 2:6-7)

I am telling you the truth: those who hear my words and believe in him who sent me have eternal life. They will not be judged, but have already passed from death to life. I am telling you the truth: the time is coming—the time has already come—when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear it will come to life. Just as the Father is himself the source of life, in the same way he has made his Son to be the source of life. And he has given the Son the right to judge, because he is the Son of Man. (John 5:24-27)

I am telling you the truth: he who believes has eternal life. (John 6:47)

For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to be its judge, but to be its savior. (John 3:16-17)

It is evident that you have some weird ideas. Your objection to *personal* is also bogus.

So let me quote the words of Christ and you tell us how you can eliminate personal from this (John 11:25,26): Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

That is a very personal question at the end.

I like Keith Green's music, but understanding the personal nature of Jesus' work on the cross for the sinner is essential.

We are individuals, Jesus died for individuals.

Perhaps there should be a better balance I would agree, but that does not mean the personal aspect is wrong.

Salvation is intensely personal. Salvation is not corporate. I cannot accept Christ on your behalf. You must face Christ on your own and as an individual receive Him as your Savior.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Throughout history, alternate views have always arisen that are typically precipitated in protest to the cultural norm at the time. Sometimes the movement sways too far right or left, but the initial protest is usually justified to some degree. Yes, there is some significance to understanding and accepting the Gospel on a personal level, we all get that, and keep it in it's proper place (like notuptome said). And there is equally a need to appreciate the condemnation that affects all men, and how the blood of Christ is for all, corporately speaking. Both are true. Simply, beware of those who over emphasize one over the other, ...on anything for that matter, not just personal vs collective. Christianity is about wisdom, balance, being comprehensive, it's never just one or two things in one's life, it's all encompassing, and everything. Avoid narrow-minded and over simplistic views like, 'it's all about the relationship (and only so)'.

That point wasn't important enough for the apostles to state in that way in the scriptures. Often 'personal Savior' is used without explanation. Adding 'personal' to 'Savior' probably mean much to the unbeliever who hears it without explanation. It can also make the gospel sound weird.

It would be better to explain to the individual who thinks of Christ as some kind of generic Savior of the world that has nothing to do with him that 'God is calling all men to repent.'

A question that does not include the word 'personal.'

I think you totally missed the point of the Keith Green quote and my opening post. Could you go back and read it?

Keith Green passed away a long time ago, 1981, I think. I would imagine based on what I heard him preach/teach online that he would have agreed that the individual must repent and believe. His article was about bogging down the Bible with unexplained extraneous terminology that makes it harder to understand and that can also be misleading.

What country are you from? I think it is mainly an American thing, though I have occasionally heard 'Juru Selamat pribadi'-- personal Savior translated into Indonesian during my many years in Indonesia. I think some American missionaries have been busy carrying extraneous verbage. I have even heard people preaching against 'agama'-- 'religion'-- though that is too big of a stretch and I don't think it has caught on-- fortunately.

I have a question for you, if you hear the question, "Have you accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?" does the use of 'personal' in that sentence sound weird, maybe even cringe worthy? Do you wonder what the point is of the word 'personal' in that context?

I think it sounded a bit like that to me as a child. I think what it was was my church rarely used that, but we helped sponsor a crusade for an evangelist who used that a lot, and it just sounded weird.

can help it the thread reminds me of Depeche Mode

In the eighties telephone ministry was pretty popular wonder if that’s still hip

I have heard of Depeche Mode, but I could not name one of their songs.

Why does this remind you of Depeche Mode. is it because it sounds very '80's or did they thing a song similar to the title of the OP?

they had a song called personal Jesus I think it was about telephone ministry’s.

I listened to it. I am glad I had never heard any of their songs as far as I know.

I don't like their music.