-Amen to that… this is exactly my point. We’re building false expectations.

Honzo, I sent you a link to the article.

I was actually arguing for the latter. You will find in every antecedent the words “people” or “us.” I meant each conditional to be a description of God’s relationship with mankind, and a fortiori, I am defining Him as a personal entity. But my main point is to show that if the Bible claims these antecedents to be true, then the Bible inferentially claims the consequences to be true. In essence, what I am trying to reject is the deistic conception of God, who is a person but not a God who interacts with His creation.

Hank,

I completely agree that within our personal relationship of God there must be a sense of awe and reverence. What better place to look than at the example of our Lord? He called God His Father, and in the same breath, declared Him to be holy. Here a the beauty of the Gospel: we are able to approach the seat of a perfect and holy God as his sons and daughters, even while we are still sinners. Simul justus et peccator.

I think there is a substantial difference between an entity being a personal entity and set beings having a personal relationship. Your argument above argues for the former, but the issue at hand is the latter. I am a personal being, but Stan Lee and I do not have a personal relationship.

Hank, the president thing is as close as I could get, because I don’t have any “kings.”

Travis
It sounds like you are defining personal as person(God/Jesus)-to-person(s) relationship, am I correct?

The image that I have when I hear the idea of “personal relationship with God/Jesus” is that of Adam and God in the garden of Eden. There in Genesis 3:8 we read about God walking in the cool of the day. Many interpreters have thus posited that Adam and Eve walked with God in the cool of the day. It gives the impression that Adam and God were (forgive the expression) “beer-drinking buddies” who’d go to the local pub every night to watch the soccer/baseball/football/basketball/hockey game. However that is a bad translation of the Hebrew and the passage should be seen as a judgment theophany where God comes in a storm motif (Look at Genesis 3:8 NET footnote 22 or click here). God is still relating on a personal level, but the idea of what American evangelicalism conveys is not that of a God who came to Adam in judgment, it is the walking in the cool breeze of the day. I really want to see American Christianity reclaim reverence and awe for God and Jesus. I have no problem with saying “God is a personal God” or that “We relate to God on a personal level.” However this idea of “personal relationship” needs to fit the biblical text.

I’m probably oversimplifying this, but God speaks to use through his word and we speak to him through prayer (primarily). That seems “personal” to me.

Neil, is that really personal? What other “person” do you have that sort of relationship with? I don’t talk to a person and then scour a codebook to see what she says back with any other person I know.

Hank, I know! No one else is defining it either. I don’t know of a nice, easy definition, but if we are going to use the word personal, then it needs to mirror how we interact with persons. Some core components to the definition would include direct and immediate verbal feedback. A true two-way dialogue. What I fear is Christianity promising too much with it’s “its not a religion, it is a (personal) relationship” tagline and then letting down scores of people who leave jaded and no longer able to hear.

1. If God gave His only true Son to die for the sins of people who are completely undeserving for the Son’s death, then God is a personal God.
2. If God is gracious to some people and condescends for the betterment of mankind, then God is a personal God.
3. If God loves people, then God is a personal God.
4. If God has a personality that he reveals to us, then God is a personal God.

The antecedent clauses (i.e. sufficient conditions) in (1)-(4) are clearly and saliently said to be true according to the Bible. And if (1)-(4) are all true (which I think it is clear that they are true), then we have four different cases where the Bible says (by inference) that God is personal.

Want Biblical evidence? Read all of 1 John 1-5.

I agree that the preaching of the word in Acts and elsewhere focuses on the “repent and believe” message. The word “love” isn’t mentioned once in Acts. That doesn’t mean love isn’t in there, just that there are no examples of the Gospel being shared with a “God loves you so much, maybe you should consider trusting him” message.

Double ditto the loss of reverence and awe for God.