John 1:12 But as many as received him...

[e.r.m.]

Really? Wouldn't receiving the power be receiving Him (the Holy Spirit, I guess you can say)?

It says as many as received him, they were given the power. It does not say as many as received the power, they were given him. You can't just replace one word for another, because they are associated. Evangelicals interchange believe and saved quite often, although they're associated they are different, so are receiving him and receiving power. It says they received him AND THEN they received power.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Aaah! Hm. Common sense.

With believed and saved, would it be I am saved because I believe in Him or I believe in Him because I am saved?

Personally, what makes sense is "I believe in Him because I am saved." Putting the emphasis on God instead of, "I am saved because I believe in Him" making the Christian the cause of his/her salvation which scripture doesn't teach.

Evangelicals interchange believe and saved quite often, although they're associated they are different, so are receiving him and receiving power. It says they received him AND THEN they received power.

 

[e.r.m.]

Aaah! Hm. Common sense.

With believed and saved, would it be I am saved because I believe in Him or I believe in Him because I am saved?

Personally, what makes sense is "I believe in Him because I am saved." Putting the emphasis on God instead of, "I am saved because I believe in Him" making the Christian the cause of his/her salvation which scripture doesn't teach.

God does put some of our getting saved in our hands. God does put belief before being saved, Mark 16:16. But evangelicals bring it even closer than that. For example
Acts 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Evangelicals say "accepting his message" is equivalent to being saved and were therefore saved before baptism. Not that accepting the message led to being saved, but that it's one and the same. I'm not trying to make a doctrinal point, but just demonstrating how two concepts sometimes are melded into one, when they are only associated.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm not trying to make a doctrinal point, but just demonstrating how two concepts sometimes are melded into one, when they are only associated.

I understand what you're saying now. It's a new perspective since I am so used to accepting as a synonym to being saved.

 

[e.r.m.]

I understand what you're saying now. It's a new perspective since I am so used to accepting as a synonym to being saved.

I'm glad I was able to explain it clearly. Its so hard to separate synonyms in people's minds. There are a lot of things that we associate today out of custom, that they did not associate in the 1st century. It's difficult to separate our own biases from the author's original intent. To do so, we really gotta pay attention to what they actually wrote and see if actually expressed themselves the way we express ourselves today. For example, someone in church one time was aghast when I informed her that the Bible never accuses Mary Magdelene of sexual sin.

 

[Muffled]

This question is directed to all our Catholic friends. But of course, all are welcomed to reply. Although my evangelical friends may disagree, my understanding of how they take this verse is that they are first taught that we are saved by "receiving Jesus as Savior" (typically in the form of a prayer, but not always) from a preacher or friend, and then with that teaching they look at John 1:12 only as a confirmation to the paradigm that has already been instilled. I speak only for my own experience, & I do not intend this as a universal statement. I personally have never met an evangelical who looked at John 1:12 and did not automatically conclude that this meant "receiving Jesus as savior", based on prior learning. I do not mean this derogatorally. Just what I've seen. I am open to being corrected if this is not the case.

My understanding from looking at the greek is that this scripture is much more basic, referring only to those who decided to take Jesus seriously, believe that God sent Him, and that he was worth paying attention to, with no immediate reference to salvation.
John 10:19 The Jews who heard these words were again divided. [20] Many of them said, “He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?” [21] But others said, “These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”

John 9:31-33 We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly person who does his will. [32] Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. [33] If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.”


Mark 1:21-22 They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. [22] The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law.

To my understanding, for Catholics salvation is not an event but a process.

What is your take on the phrase "But as many as received him..."?

Thank you.

I believe receipt means one gets something. If I receive a gift of 100 dollars I get 100 dollars. If I receive Jesus I get Jesus. Jesus explains how this happens in John 14.

 

[Muffled]

For some reason, I don't understand the question. You are right, though, salvation is a process. It isn't a "I say I believe and I say I will follow 'boom' I'm saved." From how I understood Catholicism when I practiced three years ago is that gradually we are building our relationship with Christ through the Church. So every time we take communion, we are confirming our relationship with Him and His Father. To believe in Christ is an action rather than a belief.

Can you rephrase your question if I haven't answered it already?

I don't believe you can recieve half a Jesus. One either receives Him or one does not. I do believe the relationhip grows just as a friendhip grows.

 

[Muffled]

to those that receive him, he gives authority; they are as children of God that believe in this authority.


i think it may be to those that receive the good news, and i think the good news is:
like you don;t need to kill anyone or anything to atone for your transgressions, sacrifice isn;t what is acceptable, it is mercy. carry your own cross. stop shooting the messenger and be responsible, that is reverence...and if you don't know now you know.
in the words of someone rather.

I believe God never gives His authority to another. His authority comes with Him.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe receipt means one gets something. If I receive a gift of 100 dollars I get 100 dollars. If I receive Jesus I get Jesus. Jesus explains how this happens in John 14. I don't believe you can recieve half a Jesus. One either receives Him or one does not. I do believe the relationhip grows just as a friendhip grows.

Receive in this passage in an action word. They received Jesus as opposed to not receiving him vs. 11. They simply were open to believing what Jesus had to say.
The phrase "One either receives Him or one does not."
is based on John Calvin's 1527 "receiving salvation" method of getting saved, which is not what is being described in John 1:12.

 

[Faybull]

I believe God never gives His authority to another. His authority comes with Him.

He isn't giving over His authority, but granting them an authority. There is a difference?

 

[e.r.m.]

He isn't giving over His authority, but granting them an authority. There is a difference?

I Agree, like in Matthew 28:19. All authority has been "given" to me (Jesus).

In John 1:12, to those who received Him, who believed in his name, He gave authority/power to then become children of God.

 

[psychoslice]

For me to receive Jesus is to receive yourself, our true self, just as Jesus received his true self the Christ, we are also the Christ when we realize our oneness in God, Oh, I'm don't catholic, I just think for myself.

 

[e.r.m.]

For me to receive Jesus is to receive yourself, our true self, just as Jesus received his true self the Christ, we are also the Christ when we realize our oneness in God, Oh, I'm don't catholic, I just think for myself.

What?

 

[psychoslice]

What?

yes its true, I think for myself.

 

[e.r.m.]

yes its true, I think for myself.

Thank you.

 

[e.r.m.]

For me to receive Jesus is to receive yourself, our true self, just as Jesus received his true self the Christ, we are also the Christ when we realize our oneness in God, Oh, I'm don't catholic, I just think for myself.

The ultimate goal however is to receive God/Jesus, not to find ourselves. Although we may find the self that God always wanted us to be along the way, that's just a perk, a fringe benefit. The two are not synonymous should not be confused. We are not the Christ. We don't realize our oneness with God. We acquire or are given unity with God after we receive salvation, until such time we are separated from God by our sin.

 

[psychoslice]

The ultimate goal however is to receive God/Jesus, not to find ourselves. Although we may find the self that God always wanted us to be along the way, that's just a perk, a fringe benefit. The two are not synonymous should not be confused. We are not the Christ. We don't realize our oneness with God. We acquire or are given unity with God after we receive salvation, until such time we are separated from God by our sin.

Yes I know you believe that, but I don't, I see more than the words in the bible, the bible makes no sense to me as a literal story, I see only metaphors. The bible has been interpret literally for too long, but many are starting to see beyond the mere words, this is true spirituality.

 

[e.r.m.]

Yes I know you believe that, but I don't, I see more than the words in the bible, the bible makes no sense to me as a literal story, I see only metaphors. The bible has been interpret literally for too long, but many are starting to see beyond the mere words, this is true spirituality.

Thank you.
I don't think "seeing beyond" is a good descriptor, but rather "overlooking" or "ignoring".

With all due respect, to describe the words as "mere" is presumptuous. People often say that when they don't understand the words or just don't like them.
Hebrews 4:12-13 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. [13] Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

The words themselves are powerful. One can't see "more" than the words if he/she doesn't yet understand the words. It's like trying to understand algebra without first understanding arithmetic.

I agree partly with
The bible has been interpret literally for too long,

Interpreting is bad. The authors had their own message in mind when they wrote it. It's that message we should be seeking, not our own. Some parts of the Bible are intended as literal.

Acts 11:28 One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.)

There was literally a Roman Emperor Claudius, who was succeeded by Nero.

Other parts are allegorical or metaphorical, like the parables, which are not meant to be taken literally.

 

[bird]

"This question is directed to all our Catholic friends. But of course, all are welcomed to reply. Although my evangelical friends may disagree, my understanding of how they take this verse is that they are first taught that we are saved by "receiving Jesus as Savior" (typically in the form of a prayer, but not always) from a preacher or friend, and then with that teaching they look at John 1:12 only as a confirmation to the paradigm that has already been instilled. I speak only for my own experience, & I do not intend this as a universal statement. I personally have never met an evangelical who looked at John 1:12 and did not automatically conclude that this meant "receiving Jesus as savior", based on prior learning. I do not mean this derogatorally. Just what I've seen. I am open to being corrected if this is not the case."

I see this verse as being about receiving Jesus for who he is. For example, God opens the heart of a person to understand that this is Jesus, straight from God, the savior in human form. When God gives someone that understanding, then they are not thinking so much 'who is this man?' or 'should I listen to this man?' or especially they are not rejecting him as not an authority, because he is not one of their religious leaders. A person who receives Jesus has a heart that recognizes Christ for who he is and is devoted to him notwithstanding other "religious" claims that would contradict him. I do not see it as some sort of formalized prayer that any religion says should be prayed to be saved, though a prayer of inviting Jesus into the heart can be good perhaps. It is hard to imagine a case where asking Jesus into one's heart would be bad. Such an act would not be the thing that saves a person though. Rather, God's act of opening ones heart to truly believe and trust him as savior would. A person who receives Jesus is not rejecting him but welcoming him and his words. Jesus has his own spiritual children today and many groups and religions, including supposedly Catholic or Christian ones, may not recognize the ones who are truly in Christ today and may reject the true children of God today just as many religious persons of Jesus' time rejected him. People and religions may have many institutional and other ways of not recognizing just who these, God's real children, are, and thereby not receive Christ. Further, I think a person who truly receives Jesus will realize that they can talk to God for who he is, the true God of the Bible and the creator and savior. Clearly, John 1:12 and it's surrounding verses are involved with the difference between the saved and the unsaved persons, because it says that one kind of person is born from above and recognizes Christ for who he is, receiving him, whilst another kind of person is not born from above and does not recognized who Christ is nor receive him.

 

[e.r.m.]

"This question is directed to all our Catholic friends. But of course, all are welcomed to reply. Although my evangelical friends may disagree, my understanding of how they take this verse is that they are first taught that we are saved by "receiving Jesus as Savior" (typically in the form of a prayer, but not always) from a preacher or friend, and then with that teaching they look at John 1:12 only as a confirmation to the paradigm that has already been instilled. I speak only for my own experience, & I do not intend this as a universal statement. I personally have never met an evangelical who looked at John 1:12 and did not automatically conclude that this meant "receiving Jesus as savior", based on prior learning. I do not mean this derogatorally. Just what I've seen. I am open to being corrected if this is not the case."


I see this verse as being about receiving Jesus for who he is. For example, God opens the heart of a person to understand that this is Jesus, straight from God, the savior in human form. When God gives someone that understanding, then they are not thinking so much 'who is this man?' or 'should I listen to this man?' or especially they are not rejecting him as not an authority, because he is not one of their religious leaders. A person who receives Jesus has a heart that recognizes Christ for who he is and is devoted to him notwithstanding other "religious" claims that would contradict him. I do not see it as some sort of formalized prayer that any religion says should be prayed to be saved, though a prayer of inviting Jesus into the heart can be good perhaps. It is hard to imagine a case where asking Jesus into one's heart would be bad. Such an act would not be the thing that saves a person though. Rather, God's act of opening ones heart to truly believe and trust him as savior would. A person who receives Jesus is not rejecting him but welcoming him and his words. Jesus has his own spiritual children today and many groups and religions, including supposedly Catholic or Christian ones, may not recognize the ones who are truly in Christ today and may reject the true children of God today just as many religious persons of Jesus' time rejected him. People and religions may have many institutional and other ways of not recognizing just who these, God's real children, are, and thereby not receive Christ. Further, I think a person who truly receives Jesus will realize that they can talk to God for who he is, the true God of the Bible and the creator and savior. Clearly, John 1:12 and it's surrounding verses are involved with the difference between the saved and the unsaved persons, because it says that one kind of person is born from above and recognizes Christ for who he is, receiving him, whilst another kind of person is not born from above and does not recognized who Christ is nor receive him.

Such an act would not be the thing that saves a person though. Rather, God's act of opening ones heart to truly believe and trust him as savior would.

Good point. We should put our genuine trust in Jesus and not confuse that with a prayer. But even with that definition of receiving, it didn't become the point where one gets saved.

Clearly, John 1:12 and it's surrounding verses are involved with the difference between the saved and the unsaved persons, because it says that one kind of person is born from above and recognizes Christ for who he is, receiving him, whilst another kind of person is not born from above and does not recognized who Christ is nor receive him.
The problem here is that John doesn't equate receiving Jesus in this verse with already being saved or being children of God, but with being given the right to become children of God. Receiving Jesus, believing in his name, put them on the path, it did not seal the deal. Once they do become children of God, then all those differences apply.