The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Having Issues...

I was sitting at school today and I had a thought cross my mind. As God would have it, Sam, my Methodist friend, came up and I brought this thought to him and it got his mind working as well.

My question has 2 parts.

First, where did the teaching come from (or when did it start being heavily taught) that we each have to individually come to "have a personal relationship with Jesus" (to use typical evangelical terminology) come from? Second, how does that idea fit with this passage of Scripture:

Also, if any woman has an unbelieving husband, and he is willing to live with her, she must not leave her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the Christian husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. (1 Corinthians 7:13-14 HCSB)

My issue is that this passage and the common evangelical belief don't seem to go together. Am I missing something or misinterpreting this passage or what? Am I over-complicating the matter? I am just kinda confused

Kalled2Preach,

The notion of "individual salvation" began with Adam! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Nowhere in Scripture will you find "corporate salvation", although those embracing NPP/Auburnitism, would disagree.

As for 1Cor 7:13-14, you evidently have wrongly understood the passage to be saying that if there is a believing spouse in a family, then by consequence of that person's faith, the unbelieving spouse and all their children are "saved"? But the passage doesn't teach any such thing. What Paul says is that they are "holy", i.e., they are "set apart, different", which BTW is the predominant meaning of the word "holy" in Scripture. They are "different" in that they have been given the privilege, due to the presence of the believing spouse, of being exposed to a godly life, hearing of the Gospel, possibly the preaching of the Word in corporate worship, the fellowship of the saints, etc., which are the means by which salvation comes. (cf. Rom 3:1; 9:3-5)

In His Grace,

Thank you. I appreciate it very much. I figured I'd misunderstood something there but I wasn't quite sure what it was. That helps a lot. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

Could you please clarify what "NP/Subunits" is???

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sorry.gif" alt="" /> It should have read, "NPP/Auburnitism". And, it was typed correctly the first time and it read that way when I previewed the message before it was finally posted. But something VERY strange is happening in this regard, for I have noticed lately the corruption of words taking place after/during posting. For example, I just replied to "speratus" and in the Quote's caption, his name was changed to "sprats"; the "e" and "u" were mysteriously missing when I previewed it. Also, in my reply above, "1Cor" was changed to "CO".

So, my reference, which I have now corrected in the original reply, was to NPP (New Perspective on Paul, ala: N.T. Wright, &co.) and those who embrace the similar teachings of Norman Shepherd, popularlized by the "Auburn Avenue Statement", such as Doug Wilson, Steve Schlissel, &co.

In His Grace,

I had a feeling that it was that New Perspective on Paul thing that you were referring to. Thank you.

Kalled,

On the other hand, I don't think the terminology "having a personal relationship with Jesus" is a Biblical way of summarizing the message of the gospel. (You'd agree with me, I'm just venting some thoughts here.) The essence of the gospel is justification, a doctrine most evangelicals don't even understand (myself included for many years). We do have fellowship with Christ, but this is a result of being reconciled to God through the propitiation of Christ's blood. I know Catholics who speak quite openly about their personal relationship with Jesus, and yet they still think they got there by their own works, and they still worship Mary, etc. etc. etc.

Ever since the 4 Spiritual Laws (likely before this, actually) evangelicals have consistantly framed the gospel in the terms of a broken relationship. i.e. You and God are separated, and although you REALLY want to be His friend again, you can't, unless you walk across the bridge of the cross, etc. At best, this "relationship" gospel presents only one aspect of the Biblical gospel, and even being so generous we really have to ask ourselves what kind of a gospel that is.

I am deffinitely in agreement with you. It seems like the "hard" stuff of the gospel is omitted these days. Hard texts of Scripture are ignored; that probably explains why I had such a hard time with that passage I quoted above. In my 21 years of being in churches, I have NEVER heard a sermon on that passage. In fact, I've rarely even seem someone write on it.

It's a scary time for Christianity when Christians don't want to think about the book that they claim to believe.

I am so glad you posted this, and I totally agree that this is lacking in today's churches. Most churches would rather engage in either flighty and trendy fads (such as the personal relationship), act as advocates of the Republican party, or go into great depth into books of the Bible (which is a good thing for a Christian) without really teaching the Gospel (which is a bad thing for the Christian). I have tried to state this elsewhere....teaching the Gospel is imperative. Most people in the pews do not really know the Gospel.

Kalled,

The idea does NOT fit into Scripture.

Ask your Methodist friend; "What does having a personal relationship to Jesus mean?".

I submit that it may mean anything to anyone.

Believing in a "personal" relationship with Jesus may be simply an excuse for not listening to what He is saying to you by His words expressed to us only in Scripture.

Having a "personal relationship with Jesus" is a mystification (Paganization) of our language and thought, and is totally without biblical warrant. Our God speaks to us in propositional, logical and un-mystified intelligent language.

Loving and honoring our Creator is hardly the same thing as going fishing with a buddy. I am tired and disgusted with evangelicals who treat our Lord as if He were a "Shoemakers Apprentice". (Luther)

If one wishes to have a "relationship" and be a "friend" of Jesus, he should immediately begin and continue to be obedient and attentive to His words ALONE!

Denny

Rom. 3:22-24

I think the whole "personal relationship" is, at some level, important.
We are not saved by being born into a Christian family.
We are not saved by being a good person.
We are not saved by being wealthy, by earthly success.
We are not saved by going to church.
We are not saved by being baptized.
etc.
According to the scriptures our justification by grace through faith is personal. Now, simply stating a personal relationship with Jesus is a bit trite, but it is a step in the correct direction.

I was meditating and thinking on this passage of Scripture some more even after I got responses here and I came to this thought...Could someone please tell me if this makes sense or if I am way off base?

I command the married--not I, but the Lord--a wife is not to leave her husband. But if she does leave, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband--and a husband is not to leave his wife. But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she is willing to live with him, he must not leave her. Also, if any woman has an unbelieving husband, and he is willing to live with her, she must not leave her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the Christian husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. (1 Corinthians 7:10-14 HCSB)

I found a connection between that passage that I've been struggling with and this one from James:

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith, but does not have works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothes and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you don't give them what the body needs, what good is it? In the same way faith, if it doesn't have works, is dead by itself. But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without works, and I will show you faith from my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. The demons also believe--and they shudder. Foolish man! Are you willing to learn that faith without works is useless? Wasn't Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was active together with his works, and by works, faith was perfected. So the Scripture was fulfilled that says, Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness, and he was called God's friend. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, wasn't Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by a different route? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. (James 2:14-26 HCSB)

My connection is that the believing wife or husband sanctify the unbelieving partner and their children by living such a Godly life that the unbeliever has no choice but to make a decision in favor of salvation in Christ. And that holds true for the children as well. They will see their parents living such Godly lives that eventually they will come to a saving knowledge of Jesus. This way, the faith can pass to the next generation. And it was by the works of the parents, indrectly, that led to their children being saved and thereby keeping the faith alive for another generation. Please let me know if I am wrong in this notion.

First, I don't really see how you're connecting these two passages. They're addressing two different subjects. Second, your conclusion is WAY off. Unbelieving spouses and children are made holy (set apart, different) by virtue of being intimately exposed to godly living and the means of salvation through the believing spouse. They are not holy because the unbelieving spouse and children will certainly believe due to the works of the believer! The unbelieving spouse who leaves is no longer "holy," nor grown children who depart from the home and the church. They have joined themselves to the world and so cannot be said to be "set apart."

Ok. I wasn't sure about my conclusion...hence why I asked. I didn't wanna be holding something that was off base.