Where exactly is that in the Bible? This is never taught from scripture, yet parroted by many. While the Bible says that (Matt. 1:21 21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins, Acts 4:12 12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.) Jesus is the savior, but nowhere can one make the fallacious derivation of "personal relationship" -- where is that per sola scriptura?
It isn't.
[...snip...]
God is my buddy, Jesus is my friend.
The modern hymn calls Jesus a "friend" and some may appeal to a verse in John where Jesus calls his disciples "friends".
But the understanding of the word is decontextualized. People of the time of the Bible did not "get to know" each other as modern persons in the West do. A "friend" meant a person who looked out for your practical interests -- not someone you had beer and watched football with.
Even some preachers today (I am thinking of John MacArthur, but there are others) have lamented the modern view of God as a "buddy" as detracting from God's holiness. The result has been numerous corrupt theologies which see God as one who dispenses wealth like a gumball machine, and whose voice is constantly in one's head, sometimes defeating sound practice and doctrine but sometimes even just giving advice on what house to buy or what have you.
This myth is a common one perpetrated by some persons of influence listed below.
But really, even a more common view can be misleading. Many evangelists speak of a "personal relationship with Jesus". The phrase is used to mean something not too far from the "God is my buddy" idea, in essence meaning we can talk to Jesus any time, and so on.
If I had to correct this, I would say that what is required of us is a patronal relationship with Jesus. The NT explains our relationship with God in terms of a client-patron relationship, one in which God, patron, is remote; and Jesus, as a broker, mediates between ourselves and God. (I use these terms loosely; technically, in a Jewish sense, the words "suzerain" and "vassal" would be better; the point remains though that it is a relationship of mutual beneficience.)
Then we do have the indwelling Holy Spirit as a broker as well; but though the Spirit supplies us with mediation and perhaps power, there is nothing to show that the Spirit is some sort of intimate conversation partner.
Finally, since people of the ancient world seldom "got to know each other" personally (as is taken for granted in modern, Western society) there is no way that NT writers could have had an idea like a "personal relationship with Jesus" in mind in the first place -- not as we perceive it. The word "personal" is so broad in meaning that it could include a "patronal" relationship; but that is obviously not what most people have in mind when they use the word. They usually mean something like, God is approachable in the same way one of your sports buddies is.
It is not the words that are so much the issue as the particulars of expression.
Ironically, the view of God as a remote patron is the one that is most conducive to the view concerned Christians like MacArthur wish to see us return to. Perhaps then we would see a greater respect for God and His holiness, and less concern with self-fulfillment, ranging from best-selling books having titles like The Purpose-Driven Life to our most popular songs being titled, "I Can Only Imagine" (focus on experience, not on fact).
A reader recently noted a point related to this: The myth that "the purpose of coming to Christ is happiness, joy, all the feel good emotions we love (instead of forgiveness and atonement for sin)." This is tied in with such modern conceptions as use of personal testimony as the primary form of witnessing (when in the first century, it was the evidence for the resurrection and the life of Jesus that lay at the heart of evangelism) and the self-focus that makes people live as though God will not hold us accountable for our deeds.
[...snip...]
Persons who preach a model of a "personal relationship with Jesus" that defies the Bible's contextual teachings, or other sorts of pap.
By this I mean that they go with the "God is my buddy" myth described above. The Jesus they offer ends up being, as one reader puts it, "Dr. Phil with holes in his wrists." Or, they teach little or nothing of substance, offering sermons that are little more than extended pep talks or psych sessions. The motto comes from Wendy's: "Where's the BEEF?"
I break these into two categories. The first are the popular evangelists (the 3 Grahams, Palau) and the second are the popular pastors (the 2 Stanleys, Swindoll, Lucado). I regard all of these as people who have "fallen short" in terms of providing substance that offers an adequate foundation for faith, and have instead presented a model of Jesus as a "buddy" and are most likely to answer questions about things like the Gospel of Judas with a shrug and an admonition to "just have faith" or an appeal to personal testimony.
With the evangelists, the fault is not as much theirs as it is an impropriety in how evangelism is done. Evangelism in the book of Acts WAS apologetics -- it appealed to the empty tomb, the fulfillment of prophecy, the performance of miracles; eg, facts and evidence. If you hear about any of this at a modern evangelistic crusade, it is always in passing. The focus is rather on personal experience. This was illustrated for me one evening when Franklin Graham was interviewed and asked a number of questions, and each time deflected back to the same pat answer, in essence, "Well, we all need a personal relationship with Jesus Christ."
You would never know why Christ was a worthwhile authority to believe in, based on his repeated, stock answers.
With the pastors, there is a certain degree of variance. The Stanleys offer the most pablum of the four; Swindoll the least. The bottom line is that they still offer little or no solid foundation for belief. They may pay lip service to such issues as The Da Vinci Code, but it will usually amount to passing references (maybe one or two facts discussed) and a reminder to have faith.
I will credit Swindoll's ministry for at least referring people to material like Darrell Bock's on The Da Vinci Code and bringing it up in messages. Swindoll came very close to being rated a positive contributor, in my view, but that the bulk of his material is pablum ended up putting him here. ....." bttt
I am sorry you don’t understand. That simple fact is clear evidence that you don’t understand the close relationship we who put our faith in Jesus can have, indeed are expected to have, with a gracious and loving God.
Firstly I would simply suggest you avail yourself of Jesus presence and ask Him. I will let a passage from a book by Franz Theremin to give you an idea from which you can investigate.
Franz Theremin (1780-1846) in his book The Confession of Adalbert (1828) One of the key scenes occurs in Letter #35 (pp. 191- 204), where he corresponds with his spiritual adviser (Steindorf) about the nature of the Christian’s encounter with Jesus.
Has not Christ promised to be with us, even till the end of the world; and to be in the midst of us when two or three are assembled in his name? And after such promises, shall we consider him as at a distance, or as near and present? Has not Christ promised that he will come with the Father and take up his abode with those that love him; and may I not speak of holding converse with him, when he has spoken of a dwelling in us, which implies something infinitely more and a connection much more close and intimate? Did not the Apostle hold such a converse with him, when he besought him to take away the thorn in the flesh, under which he was suffering, and was immediately enjoined by the Lord to let his grace suffice him? Did he not necessarily hold such a converse with him, in order to be able to say, ‘I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me?’ Does he not enjoin the maintenance of this fellowship with Christ upon those to whom he wrote, when he says, “Your life is hid with Christ in God?” And does the beloved disciple, who lay upon the bosom of Jesus, not only whilst the latter sojourned here upon earth, but also after he had departed hence — does John intend anything else when he represents the Lord as knocking at the door, ready, if any one open it, to enter in and sup with him?”
>> where is that per sola scriptura?<<
Don’t start the nonsense with sola scriptura as if it’s solo scriptura. Sola scriptura simply means that if it can not be verified by scripture it is not to be taken as doctrine. Trying to pervert the meaning is demeaning to the accuser.