"Accepting" Jesus

[RINO 72]

I have to admit I've used this term more than once and only recently thought about what I was saying.

Are we thinking when we say: I accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior?

August 24, 2011 in Ordinary Pastor with 18 Comments
When I became a Christian I realized that not only did I have to catch up on my biblical knowledge but that I needed to learn to speak and understand the local evangelical tongue.
I have never been shy about asking questions so this was (and remains) a healthy exercise.
One particular phrase that gets tossed around quite a bit is this:

I accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior.
​

As I learned this is a phrase to communicate the fact that one has become a Christian. As I thought about this more and more I have concluded that it is probably not the best way to communicate this truth.
What’s the big deal? Am I just nit-picking? I don’t think so. I think it’s important.
The fact of the matter is this: Jesus is Lord and Savior. That is who he is. He is the Psalm 2 king who is the true begotten of God. Quite frankly, the fact that you or I become a Christian and ‘accept’ this or not doesn’t change this fact. He is and remains Lord, Judge and King of all.
Our conversion to Christ is not about us giving Jesus a personal promotion ceremony, like he is now pinning on the rank of Colonel or General. No, he is the Judge…he is the King.
The question is whether or not he stands over you in judgment or grace. Is the scepter there to crush you like a piece of pottery or to be extended mercifully for you to kiss the Son (Psalm 2)?
I suspect that if I were to needle my fellow evangelical friends in their usage of this phrase they would quickly recover and agree. Most don’t think and operate in the unbiblical categories. However, my concern is that we are not thinking enough. These things (in particular) matter.
Jesus Christ is the universal, cosmic judge. He is the king who reigns. He is the only Savior. He is the beloved Son. He comes to us in the grace of the gospel and commands us to accept these truths, humbly submit to him, and follow him obediently.
Sometimes I regret that I have become so naturalized in my ability to speak the language of Zion that I forget to ask myself what I am saying. I miss the green ignorance of my early days in the faith. It was here that I would come upon words and phrases that I didn’t get and ask questions. It has served and will continue to serve me well in the rich discovery of great biblical truths while shining the spotlight of Scripture on the fuzzy corners of our theology.

 

[Svt4Him]

My son had a homework assignment that I ended up doing most of. He then brought it to school and when presenting it, he said "this is the hat I made". Being his father, I really didn't care at all then it was the hat that I in fact made, I simply was proud of him and glad we hang out. I often wonder if God is not like that, that I don't have to worry about whether I'm using the correct jargon when describing Him or if He's simply enjoying the times.

 

[NOTurTypical]

Are we thinking when we say: I accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior?

I look at it as "affirm and declare" Him as our personal Savior. To affirm Him as our Lord. To believe He was who He said He was. Kinda the same as the thief on the cross beside him did and said. The thief believed Christ was who He said He was and affirmed He was "Lord" when he addressed Him as such.

 

[miamited]

hi Rino,

Of course it could certainly be defined differently by different people, but I understand that when someone says that they have accepted Jesus, they mean one of two things. 1) Either they went down after a service or at some alter call or possibly some trying time of their life and made a publice confession of Jesus as Lord and may or may not still be living under that lordship. 2) They have accepted the true testimony that Jesus has given us and believed that his death has atoned for their sin and now live a life following the commands and teaching and life of the one they trust as their savior.

As has been shown throughout history, God isn't really impressed with words. He searches the heart. Words that come from our mouth that are not supported by the heart of our spirit are as useless to God as those in Israel who were circumcised in the flesh and not of the heart.

I imagine that your frustration regarding this term is similar to mine. You hear people use it all the time, but you don't see the fruit of it in their lives.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[RisingSpirit]

How does an Elect accept the Gift of Faith already given to the Elects.

The Elects are the Elects.

They discovered the Gift of Faith.





No accepting involved.

 

[mmmcounts]

How does an Elect accept the Gift of Faith already given to the Elects.

The Elects are the Elects.

They discovered the Gift of Faith.





No accepting involved.

The elect do start off as unregenerate individuals like everyone else (all we like sheep....) and they aren't actually saved until God saves them. I guess the main thing with the elect is that they were chosen beforehand, meaning God foreknew and predestined them to become His children. But He doesn't actually save them until some point in their lives at which He saves them.

It does kind of rub me a little bit wrong the way I hear the word "accept" used, though- sometimes it seems to imply that someone made a personal decision about what God would do and then God automatically did it. As if the elect have an initial role in the causality of this thing from pretty early on. Truth is, though, God is the one who causes it to happen and it gets done when He gets it done. Until He does that, we're all beggars and God's the only one who really knows who's the elect and who's not.

Of course, once God regenerates the unregenerate, transforms the unrighteous, and indwells His adoptive child uniting them to the Body of Christ, that individual knows definitively that they're one of the elect. But before that happens....until that happens....it isn't something that's happened yet, and God only knows up until a certain point.

 

[RisingSpirit]

It does kind of rub me a little bit wrong the way I hear the word "accept" used, though- sometimes it seems to imply that someone made a personal decision about what God would do and then God automatically did it.

With the endless debates between the reformed Christians and the Free Will believers, we can't agree on the meaning of "chose" or "choosing". One side of the fence has "God chooses Us" and the other side of the fence has "Man chooses God" It ain't a volleyball game. If we tear that fence down we all need to agree that God is omnipresent, the past, present and the future. The only thing left to do is plan to think that it is God that makes you do everything. That is the meaning of being guided by the Holy Spirit. Think that on your next breath and feel the relief of the guarantee and the promises of Salvation. Forget "Free Will" since it doesn't exist and long, long, long, long, long GONE in the past. Continue on to the next breath and remind yourself that God is the source of your original thought. Forget trying to trace the original source of your thought. The empty blackness void will make you rethink the thinking process. Everyone will need to surrender and admit that your not the creator of each thought process. The real key is to get to the wall of the future and stick with it, living in the present and make every breath count as if it was your last breath. If you think about what happened two breaths ago, you're living in the past and very, very, very, very far from the wall of the future. Living in the past allows plenty of "free Will" but it's still sin and useless to save yourselves.

 

[spiritual warrior]

I have to admit I've used this term more than once and only recently thought about what I was saying.

Rino...I know what you mean. For the last hundred years or so it seems that the church doesn't know what the word "salvation" means. People use the word to mean eternal life, but when we look at the scriptures closely, salvation means "deliverance from the bondage and power of sin" and speaks directly to those who are walking in union with God in the New Covenant as being free from sin. This does not mean that we do not sin in application, but that God has delivered us from the power and bondage of sin.

They also confuse the fact that salvation is part of the atonement, eternal life is not. Salvation...like the other elements of the atonement (justification, redemption, reconciliation, holiness, and righteousness), are given to us at the moment of receiving the new birth for the specific reason that we can then enter into covenant relationship with God. We cannot enter that relationship until we have accepted that Christ-atonement, and only in that new covenant do we find eternal life - it is a promise only applicable to those participating in the atonement.

Because of this confusion, we have hundreds of folks sitting in pews around the country thinking and believing that they are "saved" and on their way to heaven. Truth is, the new birth is only the first step...many never enter into the covenant relationship with God because 90% (my estimation) of preachers and teachers today don't even understand the new covenant.

 

[Togowack]

i love how you people use doctrine to divide and destroy the church

saves me a lot of testing