Thank you, Seamusz. There are a few things I would like you to consider.
First of all, I do not recall the Bible ever using the terminology, “personal relationship with Christ.” That’s basically modern evangelical language used to simplify some of their theology and practice. While the idea of relationship is not alien to the Scripture (on the contrary!), I often suspect that the term introduces a certain ambiguity about what that relationship exactly is. Here we need a little bit of theological insight and some knowledge of the Scriptures.
There are two aspects of this relationship between God and his saint. The first aspect is God’s disposition toward man. Words that describe that disposition are typically “mercy” and “grace,” that is, his good will and favor. Other words that apply include “revelation”, “command”, and “expectation.” That is to say, God reveals himself and his truth, and also reveals his will for mankind.
The other aspect is the saint’s response. And here, the primary term is “faith.” In other words, the saint, when he receives mercy, trusts in God’s goodness. When he receives revelation of truth, he believes that truth. When he receives commands, he trusts God’s will and obeys those commands.*
*Here, I am not saying that obedience places us in a right relationship, but that it is an expression of that right relationship. A saint does not seek to defy God's will, but rather to live by it, even while recognizing that they cannot perfectly do so.
So, you see, we now have a clearer understanding of what this relationship entails. Why? Because it is important for us to have a clear picture lest we presume upon a relationship which we might very well be violating.
I’ll give you an example (and bear in mind, this is only and example, and not intended to make a direct connection): I’ve heard kids today, who call themselves Christian, who think that it’s okay to have sex before marriage. But if you show them from the Scriptures that their attitude is wrong, they simply dismiss it by saying, “But I have a personal relationship with Jesus, so I don’t have to worry about it.” They end up using their “personal relationship” as an excuse to defile their bodies in open defiance against God’s will. It’s like a wife who cheats on her husband, but when asked if she thinks it’s wrong to do so, replies, “It’s okay. I’m married to him. That means I can cheat on him as much as I want.”
That’s just an example of why I think it’s vitally important that we define what we mean by “personal relationship with Christ.” It is mercy, grace, truth, and command on his part, followed up with faith and repentance on ours.
Another reason is that I think the term tends to make faith an entirely subjective experience. Pistis in the New Testament applies not only to personal faith (fides qua), that is, one’s own individual spirituality and experience, but also to the communal faith of the Church revealed by Scripture (fides quae). In fact, the Scriptures commend us that our personal faith ought always be informed by our communal faith, that is, right confession.
Biblical Christianity has always been a religion concerned with truth. That being the case, those who claim to be Christians do not have the option to simply ignore revealed truth in favor of their personal, subjective experience.
One of the points that I made in this thread is the unreliability of subjective experience apart from objective examination of facts. Several times, different people suggested that I needed to read the Book of Mormon and pray for God to reveal the truth to me directly. Well I did that. And God led me to the Nicene Creed instead. But if the same subjective process leads other people to the Book of Mormon, and others to the Watchtower, and still others to myriads of other books and beliefs, then can this method be considered reliable? I do not think so.
Another concern that I expressed in this thread is the prevailing belief that the early Church deliberately altered the Scriptures for their own purposes. Here, I relied on available biblical manuscript evidence to demonstrate that, if they were to pull it off successfully, then they would have had to do it while the Apostles were still around. The science of textual criticism, it is estimated, gives us a complete New Testament text with approximately 99.5% reliability. So much for the “The Church altered the Bible for it’s own agenda” argument.
And yes, I did issue some challenges to Mormon beliefs, at least some of those expressed in this thread. But please keep in mind, I did so at times because I felt my own beliefs being challenged. For example, my questioning of the validity of the Book of Mormon came in answer to a challenge to the reliability of the biblical texts. At the time, I felt it only fair to turn the question posed to me back to the one who asked.
In short, while it may be true that I am in no place to judge you as a person, or to judge God’s disposition toward you (which, in my own thinking, his disposition is one of mercy anyway), or even of your disposition toward God. However, in accordance with the teachings of Scripture, I have only tried to do my duty, which was to question some of the confessional teachings of your church. Questions, I might add, that were also directed toward my own orthodoxy by others. And why? Because God wants us to live in truth. And if we are going to serve truth, then we need to discuss those things we disagree upon. It doesn't mean I hate anyone, or that I'm judging anyone; only that I'm trying my best, according to what has been given me, to serve truth.
That is all I feel necessary to say, except this: the peace of Christ, which surpasses all human understanding, be with you.
_________________
Last edited by Didymus on Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
|