The necessity for Christian to be in a relationship with Jesus and what that entails

[Daniel Peres]

I believe the first cause of our salvation is God’s love for us. However, I do believe scripture teaches us that we have a responsibility to respond to his love. Otherwise, everyone would be saved. Do you believe everyone is saved? Do you believe God forces salvation on those who do not desire to be saved?

Furthermore, I believe we are required to obey the first Great Commandment, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.”

Protestants and Catholics both agree we must have a personal relationship with Jesus. Both Jesus, and Paul clearly describe the relationship between Jesus and his church as a marital relationship. Jesus is the groom, and the church is his bride. In order to have an authentic marital relationship, the groom must love his bride, and I think we can both agree Jesus loves his bride the church. However, based on the opinions of the Christians on this forum, it appears that some believe there is no need for a bride to love her groom.


But the fact is, there is no authentic marital relationship if the bride and groom don’t both love each other. In fact, the initial romantic relationship between a man and a woman that is exists prior to marriage needs mutual love to even come into existence in the first place. Looks let at how a typical romantic relationship is created. Let’s assume there is a man called John who has fallen in love with Judy. He is convinced he wants to marry her one day. The first thing John needs to do is proclaim his love for Judy. However, that is not enough. John must love Judy, and so he does.

Would anyone say a romantic relationship has been formed between John and Judy? Nobody that knows anything about romantic relationships would say that they are in a relationship. In fact, if John tells Judy that they are in a romantic relationship and that she is now his girlfriend, she might just get a restraining order on him because he’s clearly mad.

At this point, there is only a possibility of a creating a romantic relationship. So, what do you think is missing that would get this potential romantic relationship started. There is only one possible thing that is needed, and that is that Judy must return John’s love for her. Otherwise, John will have, what is commonly called, an unrequited love and that is not a romantic relationship. Once the two begin to love each other, they become boyfriend and girlfriend and the romantic relationship begins. If all goes well, they will one day enter a marital relationship. There will of course be a wedding with John as the Groom and Judy the Bride.

I hope it’s clear how my description of a romantic relationship parallels the relationship between Jesus and his Church.

Now, we of course know for certain that Jesus loves us. But how do we know we love him. All Christians claim they love Jesus, and they may sincerely believe that based on what they believe love is. However, the truth is that a spouse wants to be loved in the manner they choose. Jesus was very, very clear that those who love him follow his commandments. Logic dictates that this teaching of Jesus also means that if you don’t follow his commandments, then he will not consider you to be a person that loves him.

A perfect example of this is found in Jesus’ parable of the sheep and goat. The goats were certain that they loved Jesus. However, Jesus informed them that all the acts of love they refused to do for suffering people were, in fact, a refusal to do the acts of love to him, and therefore the goats really did not love Jesus. Conversely, Jesus informed the sheep that all their acts of love towards suffering people were, in fact, acts of love that were done to him by the sheep. They really did love Jesus.

Now, as for the Epistle of James and the need for faith to include good works. Modern-day Protestants have decided that James did not mean what the plain meaning of his words are. Instead, new they use clever alternative interpretation methods to contradict the plain meaning interpretation.

You might know the original Protestant Reformer, Martin Luther, strongly disapproved of the Epistle of James. In fact, he called it the “Epistle of Straw” in the preface to the New Testament in his German translation of the Bible. He even demoted the Epistle’s authority to a second-class status among the New Testament books.

In his book, Word and Sacrament I, Martin Luther was clear about his issue with the Epistle of James. He stated that James is “flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works.” But now today, there are Christians who believe Martin Luther was wrong to say that James’ teaching about faith was heretical. These Christians now believe that James was correct all along, and it was Luther who interpreted James incorrectly. Apparently, these Christians believe James’ problem was just that he didn’t have good writing skills and he really meant the opposite of what he wrote.

Well, I certainly agree that Martin Luther did not have a correct understanding of what James intended to teach in his epistle. The reason for the erroneous interpretation is that Luther made two mistakes when reading the epistle.

The first mistake was to believe that James was referring to works of the law that Paul taught were useless. Now, Paul was very educated and he could have written, “You are now saved by faith and not by works,” but he didn’t. He was very specific when he wrote you are no longer saved by “works of the law.”

James, on the other hand, wasn’t so specific. He just used the word “Works” all by itself. However, he was very clear in his description of the type of works he was referring to. He was clearly talking about works that bring comfort to a person who is suffering. It seems obvious to me that the two men were talking about two different types of works. It’s not my opinion, it’s a fact. Paul specifically referred to “Works of the Law,” and James was clearly writing about bringing comfort to the suffering.

Now, even if Luther had correctly understood that Paul and James were talking about two different kinds of works, he still would have been mistaken about James teaching that that salvation is earned by bringing comfort to the suffering.

James wasn’t talking about earning salvation at all. A better way to explain what James was saying in a modern sense is, “If you’re going to talk the Christian talk, you better walk the Christian walk.” In other words, what good is it to spread the Gospel if you don’t live the Gospel.

 

[Randy2844]

Your point that our personal relationship with God through Christ must be mutual and reciprocal is well-founded The importance of having a genuine relationship with the Lord is represented in Matthew 7:21-23. where Jesus says:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

What stands out for me in the above passage, is the use of the Greek ginṓskō, rendered "knew." While ginṓskō usually denotes being aware of or having first hand knowledge of something, it is occasionally used of sexual intimacy, as in Matthew 1:25 and Luke 1:34. And it is in the sense of intimacy that Jesus uses it in Matthew 7:23. Jesus is in effect saying to these wayward individuals, "you were never in a committed, intimate relationship with me. You are disobedient workers of lawlessness and what you did by the power of my name is irrelevant." Indeed, talking the talk accounts for little, if we don't walk the walk as well.