Featured Personal Relationship

The saved are Children of God. Can't get much more personal than that!

 

I believe it is Scripturally based, Salt. In His high priestly prayer in the upper room, Jesus called us friends.

John 15, NASB
15 "No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you."​

I think that speaks for itself. Being called "friend" means there is a personal relationship.

Online "personal relationships," in my opinion, are impossible. Anyone can be anything they want behind these screen names and personal histories. On the other hand, if one feels led to reach out via the phone or meet in person, that takes the relationship beyond the screen, and puts into the "real world." I think we can begin the basis for pursuing a personal relationship online -- I met my wife online -- but it doesn't become "personal" until it becomes ... well, "personal." Face to face.

 

Excellent point OR. As far as the difference in reaction between posting and in person, I have only met two people in person. I hope to catch Icon one day passing through. I do know that eye to eye contact tempers words and attitudes. There is no way some pastors on this board would talk to their congregations the way they post if they wanted their jobs very long.

I can only think of two individuals in eight years on this board that I would have nothing to say to meeting eye to eye.

As far as a Scriptural reference I think love your neighbor as yourself is enough for me, as is the parable of the Good Samaritan. Paul also talks of the love amongst believers. Christians naturally want to be around other Christians.

 

The usefulness ship has sailed, IMO.

The phrase has definitely lost its value or significance... whatever that was at first when it was used. But now, it is used so profusely, it is simply evangelical cliche, verbiage, and language. Not only that, it only works in the western world where we are focused on individualism (thus "personal").

Why not use terminology that comes straight out of Scripture anyways? Why do we have to invent titles in this regard. Scripture is rich w/ communicating concepts for the saved. Children of God was already mentioned. Saint comes to mind. Elect... just... righteous...

 

One has to explain all those terms to a seeker. One doesn't have to explain "relationship."

 

This is one of the serious faults of the "social media"! We say things on this Forum that we would never say in person [especially if the other person is bigger and younger]. There is a psychiatrist on Fox News, Keith Ablow, who routinely talks about the danger of communication by social media only. He is particularly critical of Facebook, texting, and I believe You Tube.

 

And that's a bad thing? I would rather use Biblical terms and explain them than use unbiblical terms that, while may "speed up the process", may lead to confusion or misunderstanding.

 

"Christianese" is a foreign language to the unbeliever, the seeker, the curious, or the agnostic. Speaking it to them makes us appear elitist, intellectual, or just plain looney. If the gospel can be explained simply in terms that anyone can understand, it is more likely they will respond instead of being bored, overwhelmed, or put off. Biblical terms are for believers, not for those seeking to be believers.

 

I think this is where our different theology will bear itself in practice. I don't buy into a simply gospel "that anyone can understand" as you know. I am more concerned w/ the Holy Spirit leading than fear of their "being bored, overwhelmed, or put off."

 

Well,you've had plenty of venemous things to say to us via your keyboard Mike. Why would you suddenly clam up upon a personal meeting?

 

Post reported...............

 

The devil has a "personal relationship" with Christ... it's not a good one though.

I suspect the term came into practice when Christians were trying to marketing the gospel to the lost and were afraid that using the biblical terms like "disciple" would sound too much like a works-based gospel.

I ceased using the term "personal relationship" years ago (although I'm sure I slip up now and then) because I think it was spawned in bad theology and leads to worse theology. A person who is a disciple of Jesus has embraced the Person and lifestyle of Jesus in an intimate, life-giving, and eternal relationship.

 

I will continue to use the term personal relationship because it is both a great way to communicate and effect.

 

No comment on the first question.

On the second one. Well, there's EWF and kyredneck whom I would love to meet in person, Lord willing. plus a few others I wouldn't mind meeting, hoping it would be a mutual attitude. Like Rev. Mitchell whom I respect despite his vehemence vs PB's, and some others.
There are a few posters though whom I wouldn't care to meet, even at the feet of Jesus (in a manner of speaking).
No hatred there.
Just indifference.

 

I don't care for this "personal relationship" jargon at all. Many people used to say we have a relationship with Christ. Then it became a personal relationship. Then it became an intimate personal relationship. Then it was a deep, intimate, personal relationship.

Good grief, how many qualifiers do we need to add to a word that scripture never even uses?

This "personal relationship" nonsense, in the eyes of many, has replaced faith as the way of access into grace. I've heard it said that the way to eternal life is through a deep, intimate, personal relationship with Christ. That's some bogus nonsense, really.

What is a personal relationship supposed to look like anyway?

A few years ago, my mom and dad had to come live with me - old age and such.

Now, my mom and I never had much use for each other, all the way from my childhood. My dad, however, was my hero and I was his favorite (out of 6 kids).

My dad had left when I was 3, so we lived with our mom. He came by periodically when he was drunk, or broke, or hungry, or just wanting to argue, etc.

But I remember that any time I had a spelling bee to prepare for, he'd be there every evening for 6 weeks or more, helping me. Then I might not see him for another 3-4 months. He never made it for birthdays or any other "events"

He had lived with me for a couple of years when she had to come, too. She, being naturally extroverted, had a penchant for gabbing it up. We sort of just ignored our dislike for each other, and talked every evening until she went into a nursing home. I saw her three times over the next two years before she died.

My dad had become an introvert, stayed in his room. It also helped him avoid my mom. He'd come out to get a bite to eat, cup if coffee, bathroom, etc. He hardly ever spent more than 5 minutes at a time out of his room. He always greeted me when he came out, asked me how my day was, etc. About once a week we'd spend about 5 minutes catching up, and about once a month we had a legitimate conversation that would last a half hour.

I asked each of them, before going to nursing homes, if they thought we had a good personal relationship.

My mom said, "Not really. We never did seem to get each other. Such a tragedy."

My dad said, "What do you mean?"

I tried my best to put it in objective terms, but really struggled to define, or even describe, what a personal relationship is or looks like. Eventually, we assessed our adoration for each other, common interests, intimacy, bents, respect, interest in each others life and wellbeing, how much alike we were, and a whole host of other things, and we came to the assessment that we had a great personal relationship.

Now I ask, if you were promoting a personal relationship with Christ to an unbeliever, would you want them to seek the kind of personal relationship like I had with my dad?

By the way, I don't like the word "intimate" either. My dad and I agreed that men shouldn't be getting intimate with each other

 

As will I. :thumbsup:

(Someone always has to nitpick what someone else says, ya know?)

 

Could be justified if someone uses speech that is laden with ambiguity.

What good is it if 100 people agree with what you say, but only 1 understands what you mean?

Not everybody understands"relationship" the same way. That's part of the Christianese you mentioned a few posts ago