• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Accepting Jesus as your Personal Savior.

HerDotness

Lady Babbleon
Then, there's the question: "Have you found Jesus?" I usually answer, "Find him? Hell, I didn't even know he was lost. :D

This reminds me of a similar posting by a Pagan on another forum some years ago. He said he was once standing on a street corner waiting for the light to change when a woman with a handful of tracts approached him and asked That Question.

He said he was bored enough that he decided to turn it into a full-scale rant and went off on her, starting with something like, "What IS it with you people that you keep losing your deities and asking other people if they've found them for you??? We Pagans always know where ours are.

"It's just carelessness, that's what it is. Or maybe the poor guy is so sick of all your irresponsibility that he's hiding somewhere, hoping you never find him again...etc."

He kept at it for several minutes, he said, as she got an increasingly frightened look on her face until suddenly a van pulled up alongside them, and she leapt into it.

Priceless!
 

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
Like most modern day, western conservative Protestant ideas, there's not much that pre-dates the Second Great Awakening. The earliest usage of the phrase, from my knowledge, goes back the the tent revivals during this time period, particularly amongst Baptists and Methodists. This goes hand in hand with the "altar call", which also dates from this time period, and developed in much the same way. During early Christianity, when a person wished to be counted among the church, they made a confession faith just before their baptism, if they weren't born into the church to begin with. Like Cynthia pointed out, salvation in early Christianity was focused on the whole community, and wasn't just a personal, individualistic thing.

In the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch, it was pretty individual. So it can be, but to call him personal savior in the first century would have no meaning on it's own since that phrase didn't exist.
 
Last edited:

Muffled

Jesus in me
Calvin in the 1520's advanced the time clause that we're saved "at the moment" we first believe and he originated the idea of "receiving Christ as savior", which in 1950 became "Accepting Christ as personal savior".
Institutes of the Christian Religion (John Calvin)
Pg. 487 "Their meaning is NOT, that by faith in Christ an opportunity is given us of procuring justifications OR acquiring salvation, but that BOTH are given us. Hence, so soon as you are ingrafted into Christ by faith, you are made a son of God, an heir of heaven, a
partaker of righteousness, a possessor of life, and (the better to manifest the false tenets of these
men) you have not obtained an OPPORTUNITY of meriting, but ALL the merits of Christ, since they are communicated to you."
Page 408 "Surely he who thus speaks shows, that as soon as any one repents he will be ready to receive him, and that the rigor which he exercises in chastising faults is wrung from him by our perverseness, since we should prevent him by a voluntary correction."
Page 154 "Hence, Bernard truly says, that, in the present day, a door of salvation is opened to us when we receive the gospel with our ears, just as by the same entrance, when thrown open to Satan, death was admitted."

3. What keeps false doctrines going?
Protestants go by "The gospel is simple, salvation is simple, truth is simple" - Simplicity is intoxicating. The less one has to do to be saved, the more attractive God is. Everything revolves around that. The problem is: They go with a simple but unscriptural Gospel. When teachings sacrifice truth for simplicity, people prefer simplicity.
To support this gospel, what has developed is:
B. Protestants, live by
"A doctrine does not have to be directly stated in the Bible as long as the concept is there."
With this premise, anybody could claim any concept in the Bible. This loose approach gives protestant leaders a lot of wiggle room in their doctrines. Exs. of round about doctrine - First act of obedience is justified by Matthew 3:15 and 1 John 2:6, in the abscence of a scripture saying "Baptism is a christian's first act of obedience." Protestant leaders also use Revelation 3:20 and 1 John 1:9 as salvation scriptures even though they are not telling the Christians to whom they're addressed how to be saved.
C. They use modern day expression and philosophical reasoning to analyze first century Biblical scripture. For example John 1:12 did not in any way refer to those receiving Jesus 'as Savior', but to those who accepted that Jesus's claims were true. Protestants capitalize on the word receive out of context to support the sinner's prayer. In John 12:49-50 Jesus delivered God's words just as God wanted them - they are good enough.
D. Protestants do not encourage their members to study out for themselves the scriptures on salvation, especially before "being saved."
G. Protestantism and psychology.
-The altar call and the brain.
-Book: Made to Stick. (How humans come to accept ideas and doctrines.)
Simple, unexpected, concrete, credible, emotional, & stories.
(E.g.- Several false myths people still believe in - We use only 10% of our brains, Mary Magdelene committed sexual sin, & shaving makes hair grow back thicker.) The same 6 psychological processes that promote myths make people believe in false Biblical teachings.
In essence, although not always intentional, large institutions package things in an easy to understand way, complete with catch phrases, lingo, and slogans so that everyone within a given culture can follow along. It creates a momentum like the phrase 'Go green'. It's very difficult for people to doubt the validity of a teaching once a momentum has started - Accept Jesus as your personal savior, oh how beautiful.
I was very surprised to find out that Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, my dear Watson."

No matter how derivative some thigns may appear it is not a guarantee that the concept behind it is false.

The church has often had to battle the theistic notion of an impersonal God who would not save a person.

As for group salvation which my Calvinist pastor believed in, is it really possible to convey salvation to someone else without their permission and is it really true that the person becomes saved? In that case we could simply pray everyone into salvation and everyone would be perfect. Somehow I doubt the efficacy of that.
Did the Saxons that Charlemagne forced to become Christians or die actually become saved or did they just become nominal Christians?
 

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
No matter how derivative some thigns may appear it is not a guarantee that the concept behind it is false.

The church has often had to battle the theistic notion of an impersonal God who would not save a person.

As for group salvation which my Calvinist pastor believed in, is it really possible to convey salvation to someone else without their permission and is it really true that the person becomes saved? In that case we could simply pray everyone into salvation and everyone would be perfect. Somehow I doubt the efficacy of that.
Did the Saxons that Charlemagne forced to become Christians or die actually become saved or did they just become nominal Christians?

I agree, not a guarantee. When trying to understand a topic which the Bible does not address directly (like christian dating best practices), we are then forced to garner and gleen whatever information we can, through context and such. However, when the Bible does address something directly and people prioritize a contradicting inferred doctrine over what is written, then that points to bias. For example, the Bible says "...repent and be baptized..." Acts 2:38, "...those who believe and are baptized will be saved..." Mark 16:16, which babies can't do, but catholics ignore that in favor of the inferred "Cornelius had babies in his household and the babies were also baptized." Catholic baptism is then predominantly for infants. But catholics do not claim to hold the Bible as their sole source of doctrine, protestants do. So when protestants do the same thing and prioritize an inferred doctrine that the direct purpose of baptism is to follow Jesus example (a baptist pastor told me 3 days ago that this is an implied teaching) or the inferred doctrine that baptism is an act of obedience, over scriptures that already state the purpose of baptism like Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21-explicitly, then that is reminicent of (Matthew 15:1-9) when Jesus rebuked the pharisees of nullyfying God's word for the sake of their traditions. However, protestant leaders' followers don't question the inferred over scripture elephant in the room doctrine because it is packaged and presented in a flowery beautiful emotional way.
 
Last edited:
Top