Adding 'Personal Savior' to the Gospel

[7seasrekeyed]

ok

after reading the last # of responses from the op, I am left like

 

[presidente]

ok

after reading the last # of responses from the op, I am left like

The uber terrific post was meant to illicit that type of response, and to point out that it's the same response an unbeliever or someone unfamiliar with the jargon might have to the term 'personal savior.'

I like cheese on my burger, but I don't need a cheesy gospel.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

The uber terrific post was meant to illicit that type of response, and to point out that it's the same response an unbeliever or someone unfamiliar with the jargon might have to the term 'personal savior.'

I like cheese on my burger. We don't need cheese on the gospel.

 

[notuptome]

Something else to consider is that the early-20th-century American evangelicals (or late 19th) who added 'Personal Savior' to their presentations of the Gospel were probably doing this to address the issue of quasi-churched Americans who considered themselves Christians because they went to church or had gone to church.

Now, we live in a country where the number of people who identify themselves as shrinking. A message about how you, the individual, must respond to the Gospel, not just think Jesus is some kind of Savior of the world and that you are not required to repent personally probably doesn't resonate well with someone who does not go to church or identify himself as a Christian.

And of course it resonates a lot less well if you just throw out the term 'Personal Savior' without explanation, the remnant of a line of preaching that isn't preached so much anymore.

I am getting the idea that I like the personal Savior a lot more than I like the quasi gospel you seem intent on preaching.

Let God use His word to accomplish that which He pleases. Sin is personal and so is the gospel.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Magenta]

 

[calibob]

John Ch 1 vs 11- 13 ;
The Witness of John
…11He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of blood, nor of the desire or will of man, but born of God.…
Berean Study Bible

 

[presidente]

I am getting the idea that I like the personal Savior a lot more than I like the quasi gospel you seem intent on preaching.

Let God use His word to accomplish that which He pleases. Sin is personal and so is the gospel.

Are you implying that that preaching the Gospel without saying 'Personal Savior' (like the apostles and preachers until the 1900's) is a quasi-gospel?

 

[dcontroversal]

Jesus does not universally save anyone, nor do men make a collective decision to trust the Lord.....it is rather PERSONAL exchange between GOD and a LOST man/woman (singular)

Instead of going to seed on the fact that someone calls JESUS their personal savior, Keith Green should have just preached the GOSPEL, let PEOPLE make a personal decision, let the chips fall where they fell and quit choking on gnats!

 

[calibob]

Question: "What does it mean to accept Jesus as your personal Savior?"

Answer: Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Savior? To properly understand this question, you must first understand the terms “Jesus Christ,” “personal,” and “Savior.”

It's just standard evangelical teaching. There is nowhere that teaches against it in the New Testament but it takes a certain ammount of discernment like parables that are allegorical and metaphorical in nature to confound those who think they are wise but follow lhe letter of the law but the spirit of the law goes right past them.

Is Jesus your “personal” Savior? Many people view Christianity as attending church, performing rituals, and/or not committing certain sins. That is not Christianity. True Christianity is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Accepting Jesus as your personal Savior means placing your own personal faith and trust in Him. No one is saved by the faith of others. No one is forgiven by doing certain deeds. The only way to be saved is to personally accept Jesus as your Savior, trusting in His death as the payment for your sins and His resurrection as your guarantee of eternal life (John 3:16). Is Jesus personally your Savior?

If you want to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, say the following words to God. Remember, saying this prayer or any other prayer will not save you. Only believing in Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross for you can save you from sin. This prayer is simply a way to express to God your faith in Him and thank Him for providing for your salvation. “God, I know that I have sinned against You and deserve punishment. But I believe Jesus Christ took the punishment I deserve so that through faith in Him I could be forgiven. I receive Your offer of forgiveness and place my trust in You for salvation. I accept Jesus as my personal Savior! Thank You for Your wonderful grace and forgiveness—the gift of eternal life! Amen!”

 

[notuptome]

Are you implying that that preaching the Gospel without saying 'Personal Savior' (like the apostles and preachers until the 1900's) is a quasi-gospel?

You tell me how you preach the gospel without making it personal. Do you advise people to repent of someone else's sin?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[7seasrekeyed]

You tell me how you preach the gospel without making it personal. Do you advise people to repent of someone else's sin?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

not laughing at you

thought your response was funny

 

[7seasrekeyed]

thinking about the title of this op:

Adding 'Personal Savior' to the Gospel

if that is how you perceive it, that may explain your opposition

as has been illustrated, it does not seem to be an addition but rather an understanding

 

[Magenta]

I feel sorry for people who do not know God personally.

His sheep hear His voice.

Our relationship with God is as personal as it gets.

 

[Whispered]

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?

Well, if the Elect of God is what some Denominations claim it to mean, then the term for Jesus, as one who is that Elect, would indeed be, Personal Savior.

I don't see an issue with it. We are in a relationship with God when we enter into Christ as sinners reborn to be new creations in Christ. Jesus came to save the world. He died on the cross taking the sins of the world upon Himself there and for all people, especially those that believe. We're meant to take that personally.

 

[presidente]

You tell me how you preach the gospel without making it personal. Do you advise people to repent of someone else's sin?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

No, I am saying that 'Personal Savior' does not communicate the message you are trying to send. If you are sharing the gospel with them and encouraging them to believe, that's already personal.

IF you can't preach the gospel without making it personal, then you don't have to say 'personal Savior.'

 

[presidente]

I am getting the idea that I like the personal Savior a lot more than I like the quasi gospel you seem intent on preaching.

I have thought about this post a few times. This is the sort of thing that can make this forum really hostile. I am saying we don't need to add confusing and extraneous verbage to the gospel, stuff the apostles did not say when they preached it. I think we both agree the gospel as the apostles preached was the right one. You are arguing for sticking the word 'personal' in front of Savior, a practice that probably dates back to the late 19th or early 20th century in some circles (someone posted a references to it from AW Pink in 1937). We aren't even having a dispute over what the gospel is. And then you lob an attack at me that I am preaching a quasi gospel? What is the basis for your accusation? Do you feel like you have to attack my Christianity or my 'personal relationship' because I disagree with you about something? Do you think if someone doesn't add the word 'personal' to the gospel the apostles preached, he is preaching a quasi-gospel? Why the belligerence?

 

[UnderGrace]

No, I am saying that 'Personal Savior' does not communicate the message you are trying to send. If you are sharing the gospel with them and encouraging them to believe, that's already personal.

IF you can't preach the gospel without making it personal, then you don't have to say 'personal Savior.'

The thing is the word "personal" makes it explicit......sometimes people need that.

Having said that some people go on with the cliche "personal savior" and never really expound on what it means.

It is not the term that is the problem.

 

[stillness]

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?

I understood personal saviour to mean that God desires a relationship with us, and that prayer is that personal relationship: that we enter in the relationship of Jesus in constant fellowship with the Father. Language bariers remain until we are perfect in Love
The problen i had is people called to be saved in an alter call whem being saved is a life long journey, but it may convict them to turn from their old life. The journey with God has become personal so that no one is for real appart from Him. "Without Love I am nothing." "From mow on we know no man after the flesh."

 

[Magenta]

On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. John 14:20

 

[presidente]

The thing is the word "personal" makes it explicit......sometimes people need that.

Having said that some people go on with the cliche "personal savior" and never really expound on what it means.

It is not the term that is the problem.

Usually, when I hear it, I hear stuff like, "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior." The unchurched person who has never heard a sermon on 'personal relationship with God' or even one who has, may not know what 'personal' is supposed to men. Probably a lot of churched people couldn't tell you what that word is stuck in there fore.

The other question is, is this whole 'personal' emphasis something the way the apostles presented the Gospel. Paul said that God is calling all men to repent. But we don't see any of the apostles appealing to crowds about having a personal relationship with God. Most Christians probably do not usually wake up in the morning and have a visionary experience of being caught up to heaven and having a conversation with Jesus. I wonder what crowds of unbelievers think a 'personal relationship with God' is supposed to mean?

If the apostles could preach the gospel and get people saved (as far as we know from scripture) without preaching sermons on the importance of having a 'personal relationship', then why is that the modern evangelical Gospel? Our being reconciled with God and having the fellowship of the Holy Spirit are results of the salvation that we receive through faith. We don't get saved from hearing about personal relationship.

So often, I hear altar calls, or the similar challenge where they ask people to stay at their seat and raise a hand or repeat a prayer, that are made without even telling the audience that Christ died from the dead. Sometimes neither the sermon before, the altar call, or the prayer after mentions that Jesus died for our sins. But 'personal relationship with God' or 'not a religion but a relationship' is preached.

Why omit the stuff that the Bible calls 'gospel' and add the stuff that isn't in the Bible... the emphasis on 'personal.'

Continued next post.