Is it possibly a sign of our partisan ways that one of the most divisive things in the SBC today is the Sinner’s Prayer?
I attended a men’s breakfast this morning where a nationally known sports figure was the featured speaker. Around 800 men (well, there were a few women who crashed the testosterone party!) ate a hearty meal then listened to this man share his life story and make a gospel presentation. All in all, I would say it was a biblically grounded message – I don’t think even some of the angriest of the discernment bloggers would have found too much to quarrel with in his testimony and his presentation of the gospel. I might have tweaked a word here or there, but it was solid.
Then, he wrapped up his message by saying that “you are saved by praying this little prayer, if you mean it with all your heart.” That is where a lot of people would have recoiled in horror. That is when the accusations and recriminations usually come in!
- You guys preach “salvation by Sinner’s Prayer.”
- You guys don’t preach a biblical gospel. There’s nothing in the Bible about praying a Sinner’s Prayer.
I’m convinced that fighting about this is manifestly silly and that our differences on the issues are overblown. But in typical modern Baptist fashion, we magnify our differences, coalesce around those with whom we agree, demonize and anathematize those who disagree, and settle into our camps certain God is on our side and that “they” are in the wrong. It gets to be like one of those talk show arguments where everyone is talking at the same time and no one is listening.
I would offer the following observations.
1. The Sinner’s Prayer has been abused – without question.
I’ve seen it. I’ve cringed in meetings as someone on stage has asked everyone to “say this prayer out loud.” Then afterward, he tells everyone that if they really meant it they’d been saved. I’ve heard the Sinner’s Prayer used without adequate gospel explanation and yes, I’ve seen it presented as a means of salvation. To deny that this tool has been abused is to deny reality.
Those who have called us to account concerning the use of the Sinner’s prayer have performed a service to the church, giving us a corrective to these abuses. Instead of giving knee-jerk defenses of the Sinner’s Prayer we should look at the way it is used and make sure it is being done properly.
2. The Sinner’s Prayer is a tool to accomplish a biblical purpose.
Salvation does not come by praying a prayer. It comes by repentance and faith. It comes when a man or women is broken and turns to God in faith. That is what must take place and it is not simply rhetoric. We must never give people the idea that reciting a prayer is somehow a saving act, or that going forward is, or that getting baptized or taking communion or doing good works or anything else is. Salvation comes by the grace of God to those who feel the weight of their sin’s guilt, call to God in repentance and place their faith in Christ.
But how do they do that? Well, it is a prayer, isn’t it? We express our repentance and faith in a prayer. So, if an evangelist gives a person a little help in wording that prayer it isn’t an act of evil, is it? It would seem that it is a good thing to help people find the words to express the repentance and faith that is welling up in their hearts. Of course, no prayer can create what does not actually exist.
We have a tendency to confuse means with ends. God called us to publicly profess our faith in Christ and 150 or so years ago (closer to 200 now?) they came up with the idea of having an altar call and asking people to “come forward” to express their repentance and faith. At first, it was just a way to express faith but at some point it became confused with the very act of faith itself. When I pastored in a Southern town I would ask people when or how they got saved and they often responded, “I went forward when I was 9 years old” or something similar. They spoke of when they went forward as if it was the same as getting saved. I believe that most of them knew the difference but it was something I addressed in my sermons – that we are not saved by going to church, going forward, getting baptized, joining the church or anything else. We are saved by grace through faith.
If kept within that theological context and used carefully, the Sinner’s Prayer is not inherently evil or dangerous, but a tool to use to help repentant sinners express their genuine faith.
3. Sinner’s Prayer opposition has overheated and blown a gasket at times.
There has been some pretty strong rhetoric directed against the Sinner’s Prayer. Perhaps the most powerful is the one attribute to Leonard Ravenhill.
The Sinner’s Prayer has sent more people to hell than all the taverns in America.
Maybe I should avoid remarking on the irony of that comment, for risk of opening another can of worms I’ll regret, but the same people that fight over the Sinner’s Prayer often fight and divide over alcohol – and stand on different sides in Ravenhill’s equation. Never mind. Let’s keep Pandora’s box closed!
Is there truth in Ravenhill’s statement? Of course, there is! When people are told that they are saved by simply reciting a prayer (please don’t say it never happens – I’ve seen it myself too often to listen to denials) they are given a false hope and may be tempted to believe they are saved before they have been converted.
Is Ravenhill’s statement a tad overcharged? I would say so. Of course, neither taverns nor the Sinner’s Prayer send people to hell. Our sin and our refusal to trust Christ for salvation is what condemns. Ravenhill (assuming he did make that statement) was guilty of some intense rhetorical hyperbole. Another well-known conference speaker says, “Declare War on the Sinner’s Prayer.”
But is the prayer itself the problem or is it the misuse and abuse? Have invitations been abused? Of course, they have. Again, I’ve witnessed it too many times. I was asked to be a counselor for an “evangelistic” crusade 15 or 20 years ago and I was assigned to be a 3rd wave guy. Some of us “primed the pump” by coming forward the first time the “evangelist” (I put that in quotes on purpose!) gave the invitation. Then, he’d stop and give a second invitation and the second group would come forward. After his third invitation, I’d go forward. We’d then wait at the front hoping others would follow us – holy peer pressure, I assume. By the end of the week I felt angry at the manipulative tactics I saw employed by this man. It was disgusting. Evil. Totally of the flesh. (No, it was not Billy Graham or any of his associates.)
I remember an evangelist in the church I grew up in. We’d sung several verses of the invitation hymn and no one had come. He basically said we weren’t leaving until some people came forward that day. A few of us went down and “rededicated” our lives on the next verse so that everyone could go home.
Are invitations abused? Indubitably. Does that mean we are morally obligated to cease and desist all invitations? No. Peter gave a pretty forceful invitation on the day of Pentecost. We just have to make sure we do it (if we do it) with integrity and in line with biblical truth. Human manipulation and salesmanship are not appropriate. We proclaim and the Spirit works the heart.
The point? Calm down. Tone down the rhetoric on both sides. Those who use the Sinner’s Prayer have not all rejected the biblical gospel and those who are critiquing it are not opponents of evangelism. There is a legitimate place for helping a repentant sinner pray properly but there is a legitimate reason to question the way many have used it.
A Modest Proposal
If I had any hope that the combatants would listen, maybe I’d be more aggressive. But this is not a place where our fight needs to be as angry as it is.
1. Tone down the rhetoric.
That’s true in about 98% of our issues. There are some extremists on this issue, of course, as is true in everything, but this is not an “us against them” thing. We’ve made it into that, but it isn’t that and shouldn’t be that.
- Both sides believe in salvation by grace through faith.
- Neither side (in the SBC) believes that reciting a prayer saves us.
Our quarrel concerns a method, not the gospel itself. We should stop acting like those who use the Sinner’s Prayer desire to offer a cheap grace or that those who criticize the Prayer are opposing evangelism and the free offer of the gospel. Carefully wording our critiques to give honor to those with whom we disagree is a good first step.
2. Listen to the other side.
We are so defensive today, so quick to play the victim and pronounce ourselves offended and injured. But much trouble could be avoided if we would simply listen to the criticisms of the other side.
- Sinner’s Prayer supporters – please listen! A very good and godly man today gave a clear gospel presentation and then capped it with a false statement. I know very well that he does not believe that salvation is by praying a prayer. He said better! But his gospel presentation was a little careless. You guys could listen and fine-tune your presentation to make sure that this mistake isn’t made. You don’t want to lead anyone astray, do you? Listen! There is wisdom in the other side.
- Sinner’s Prayer critics – please listen! The people you criticize are not enemies of the gospel. They are not desirous of gaining false converts by manipulation (most aren’t anyway). Come away from your insulated conference-going, book-reading tendencies and engage some of the folks who use the prayer on a regular basis. Realize that they love the gospel just as you do and just use a different method. Show grace. There is passion for truth in the other side.
3. Come away from isolation and insulation.
If I were the pope of the SBC, one of the things I’d fight against is all the cliques and splinter groups that are forming. Many people would rather attend their splinter group meetings than our overall gatherings at the annual SBC.
What is the result of that? We become isolated from those who disagree and insulated from one another. How many times have you Calvinists felt like the anti-Calvinist groups accurately and fairly represented your views? Do you in the various non-Calvinist camps ever feel as if the way you are represented by Calvinists is fair? Of course not. Don’t ask a Democrat to accurately describe a Republican’s views or vice versa.
We separate into our camps and we caricature the other side. Of course, since we are with “our people,” no one corrects our straw man and we begin to assume our representation of “them” in indisputably accurate. They don’t evangelize. They preach cheap grace. They don’t believe the gospel is for everyone. They try to do the work of God in the power of the flesh.
And since you have surrounded yourself with only those who agree with you, no one will ever challenge your prejudiced views or correct your misconceptions. You will get loud amens and slaps on the back from your side when you demonize the other side.
One of the healthiest things we can do is bridge those gaps, come out of our secret dens of separation and fellowship across the aisle.
4. Put it in perspective.
The Sinner’s prayer is not a gospel essential. It’s a means to an end, not the end itself. The end is proclaiming Christ crucified and calling sinners to repentance. The Sinner’s prayer is neither a biblical mandate nor inherently a tool of the enemy. It’s a method for helping repentant sinners express their faith in Christ. Can it be abused? Please stop denying that. It happens all the time. Is it inherently evil? A prayer that helps a sinner express repentance and faith is evil? You really want to argue that?
Let’s keep this in perspective folks. We aren’t arguing a gospel essential but a means to an end. And we should lighten up, honor one another, and show some restraint in our rhetoric.
This is probably the most balanced article I’ve read on this subject. Thank you.
In conversations I have had with the objections to the sinners prayer it has always been about the fact that it lends to the idea that the sinner makes a decision. The next objection I often see when this subject has come up in circles I have been in is that it promotes “decisional salvation”. More times than not this is a debate between reformed and those who are not and it is based on other doctrinal differences.
I’ve not seen that. I would wonder if that comes from the caricatures of the other side or those actually opposing the Sinner’s Prayer.
The objections I’ve seen pretty much 100% revolve around the idea that it provides a false basis of security because someone prays a prayer and thinks they’ve said the magic saving words.
Could you point to a place where an opponent of the Prayer has made that point?
Paul Washer has certainly made his opinion known along these lines of thought as of late.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9hd3pV2VxU
He takes it down to the “know them by their fruits” on an equally passionate level.
While I can understand his frustration, the job of full time Fruit Inspector can be a particularly burdensome role.
His sermon seems much like the struggle we have in trying to discover who is residing in this country as an illegal alien and who is not. How do we find them and who gets to separate them when we do?
Well written article Dave–thank you very much.
My comment was intended a little more parochially. I was thinking of SBC blog wars and discussions.
I realize that the hardcore Calvinists out there disdain anything that smacks of decisionism, but when I made my comment, that was really not what I had in mind.
Did you see that Babylon Bee about Washer just glaring at a church for 45 minutes? Or the one about him showing up at Osteen’s church by mistake and there being a bloodbath?
Obviously, the most thoroughly Reformed might raise that issue, but I do not think those types of people are found at the center of the discussions in the SBC.
Dave,
Whether i am ‘thoroughly reformed’ or not, I don’t know. But salvation happens because a person chooses to repent and surrender themselves to Jesus… otherwise known or could be known as making a choice, or a decision.
The difference would be for many folks that they think the decision is to have faith, while I think the decision is made because one already has faith: because they have have faith, they believe as shown by their repentance and surrender as they confess Jesus as their Lord.
Thus an invitation [in church or one on one] that gives place for people to make such a decision is not wrong, but it would be preferable if the ‘decider’ is not coached [example: by saying, “repeat after me”],
Dave Miller,
This may be the best . . . and the most risky post you have ever written.
When one is ready to repent of their sins and believe in Jesus, how else can one possibly express that faith to the Lord than through some type of prayer—whether spoken aloud or in the quietness of one’s heart? Perhaps one could simply “sing” of one’s repentance and faith—the Sinner’s Song? Perhaps draw a picture—the Sinner’s Art? Perhaps just believe it quietly and claim the propositional truth without praying to the Lord—the Sinner’s Thought?
But I don’t really believe any other method is truly biblical, practical or effective. Clearly, the most obvious way to make a TRUE profession of faith is to express one’s repentance and belief through prayer to the Lord, and since we are all sinners, it is bound to be some kind of “Sinner’s Prayer.”
Of course, I agree with all Dave has written here regarding the integrity of the process and our explanation of salvation by grace through faith that is merely expressed by means of a Sinner’s Prayer. My overarching caution is simply this: “Let us not allow the unfortunate existence of FALSE professions of faith, that are bound to happen from time to time in the process of evangelism, to prevent us from boldly pleading for sinners to engage in TRUE professions of faith, even though such true professions may also utilize the same type of prayer repeated insincerely by false converts.”
The Sinner’s Prayer itself is not our enemy here. The impenitent and unbelieving heart of the false professor is truly the problem.
Rick, you write, “When one is ready to repent of their sins and believe in Jesus, how else can one possibly express that faith to the Lord than through some type of prayer—whether spoken aloud or in the quietness of one’s heart? Perhaps one could simply “sing” of one’s repentance and faith—the Sinner’s Song? Perhaps draw a picture—the Sinner’s Art? Perhaps just believe it quietly and claim the propositional truth without praying to the Lord—the Sinner’s Thought?”
But isn’t repentance and faith an act of the will that can or does occur without the formation of any words? Can we repent and believe without praying? You use the terms “express that faith” in reference to praying the sinner’s prayer. Is there a difference between having the faith and expressing the faith? Or are you saying these occur simultaneously? I don’t follow your point.
Well, I suppose a person deaf and mute that could only read and think might come to a place where in their heart they “willed” to turn from their sins and believe in Jesus. If they had no arms and could not even write that they trusted in Christ, I am not sure how anyone would know that they had repented and believed. Maybe a game of Pictionary or Charades? How do you baptize someone when you cannot decipher that they have made a profession of faith? Even still, though, would their “thought life” not constitute a genuine “prayer” to the Lord indicating belief and repentance?
How does one express faith in God without talking to God in some form or fashion—silently or out loud—with words spoken or just believed in the depths of one’s heart? And since talking to God in some form or fashion is prayer, my point is that believing in Jesus and trusting Him for salvation is prerequisite to a profession of faith, and that any profession of faith, it seems to me, is going to involve some kind of communication, not only to others, as in, “I believe in Jesus and turn from my sins,” but also to God, as in, “I trust in you, Jesus, and ask You to forgive me of my sins.”
If becoming a Christian is beginning a relationship with Jesus, how do you really do that without talking to Him? For all those who have problems with the “Sinner’s Prayer,” I am at a loss to figure out what the alternative might look like. In some form or fashion, a profession of faith in God involves communication with Him. I see no other real alternative.
Robert,
You said,
“But isn’t repentance and faith an act of the will that can or does occur without the formation of any words? Can we repent and believe without praying? You use the terms “express that faith” in reference to praying the sinner’s prayer. Is there a difference between having the faith and expressing the faith? Or are you saying these occur simultaneously? I don’t follow your point.”
Faith isn’t an act of the will but repentance is. Repentance is an act of faith. Faith is of the heart and having it brings justification. But we read that we believe with the heart and confess with the mouth, for in believing we are justified and by confessing we are saved.
So no, one is not saved without confession. But who is justified and not saved? No one. Thus faith is fulfilled in its work [confession] even as James 1 tells us.
Now we all know that false confessions happen. The idea is to minimize these without stifling the tender growing seed of the Gospel in the heart.
On way to encourage false confessions, inadvertently of course, is to use the sinners prayer in a group session. Using music and other emotional ploys to get people to give in and say the sinners prayer. But in saying that, I do not mean that the sinners prayer is wrong. There is nothing wrong with the prayer.
If a person believes then they express their belief. If they don’t express their belief, they are not saved. That expression is not always by a spoken prayer of profession of faith. Once I read of a Roman or some other soldier who along with his company were making Christians walk into the icy waters of a lake so that they might drown, unless they would recant Christ. They went in singing. The soldier dropped his sword and helmet and walked in with them, having be convicted and brought to faith by their witness. That was his expression of faith. The their on the cross expressed his faith by saying, “Lord remember me when you come into your kingdom.” The Ethiopian expressed his faith when he asked, “Look there is water. What prohibits me from being baptized?”
Rick, Mike, I think my question and comments were confusing, but I am still confused by your answers. What I’m asking is: Are you saying the prayer/expression of faith is essential to salvation and that it does not occur until that expression? Or does salvation occur at the moment of belief? Or perhaps you are not saying either of these?
Rick: Well, I suppose a person deaf and mute that could only read and think might come to a place where in their heart they “willed” to turn from their sins and believe in Jesus.
Do you only suppose this and not believe for a fact that a deaf and mute person can turn in their heart from sin and believe?
Robert, let me as crystal clear as I can be. A person is saved when they repent and believe. These are processes of the mind, heart and soul that may or may not involve an immediate, outward, spoken prayer of profession to God or others. Okay?
Now, let us talk about “professions of faith.” How else can any minister of the gospel KNOW that a person has made such an inward decision unless they tell the minister or unless the minister hears them telling God? How can you know who to baptize unless there is some form of communication OUTWARDLY about the inner commitment?
Furthermore, to be perfectly clear again, that inward experience of repentance from sin and faith in the Lord is more than just mental assent. It involves the heart and soul of a person. Even when not uttered outwardly through spoken prayer, I believe there is a type of inward, personal, prayerful, devotional spiritual experience in which the person “connects” with God. I don’t see how a person expresses this inward, personal faith in God apart from some type of communication in their heart and soul to Jesus. That moment of salvation involves both man and God connecting in a personal relationship.
In other words, this is not some robotic mental exercise, wherein they say to themselves in a monotone inner voice, “I believe there is a God and His name is Jesus.” They are not just talking to themselves when they repent and believe. I think they are talking to God. Thus, I think it is a form of prayer to Him as He listens to the innermost thoughts of their heart.
At the moment of salvation, man is not making a decision all by himself. God is there, and man is in fellowship with Him, accepting forgiveness, repenting of sin, believing in the Lord and establishing a personal relationship. Prayers do not save. Jesus saves. But prayer in some form or fashion is involved whenever man communicates with or worships God. So I find the notion of a prayerless salvation experience to be odd and inconsistent with the nature of man’s fellowship with God.
Thanks, Rick. That helps a lot. To be clear, I am not arguing against a person praying to God and asking “God save me,” “God be merciful to me a sinner” or anything like that. Neither am I arguing against people professing their faith. How else would we begin to know they have it? But to me some of your words seemed to be conflating a seeking prayer to God and a profession of faith as being the same thing, the latter of which I see not as us being saved but as us telling others we are saved.
I agree with you that there “are processes of the mind, heart and soul,” “that inward experience of repentance from sin and faith in the Lord is more than just mental assent” and “involves the heart and soul of a person.” I further agree that “this is not some robotic mental exercise” (though I’m not sure how you know whether the inner voice of others is monotone!) and that people “are not just talking to themselves when they repent and believe.” I believe we do talk to God, do pray to God. But I think we are confusing when we conflate repentance and faith with talking and praying. Believing is believing, whether any “talking” is done or not.
You say that you “find the notion of a prayerless salvation experience to be odd and inconsistent with the nature of man’s fellowship with God.” I would find it odd too. But when I say odd, I mean out of the ordinary kind of experience most of us have, not that it can’t or doesn’t happen. Believing is believing, and when we believe we are saved. When I was saved at a revival meeting 40 years ago, I cried out to God. It was a prayer for help. On the other hand, it was not done out loud, at the altar, or when I “came forward”. Rather I repented and believed while the preacher was preaching and made no audible words or profession until the invitation was given. Had I died before the invitation and without the profession, would I have gone to heaven or hell. Heaven, no doubt. Romans 10:13 says that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. But in verse 14, Paul shows that we have already believed when we call, for how shall they call on him whom they have not believed? This may seem like splitting hairs, but to me it is important to keep the initial focus on repentance and faith rather than praying and professing.
“When one is ready to repent of their sins and believe in Jesus, how else can one possibly express that faith to the Lord…?”
…baptism
That is a bit of a straw man there, Rick.
The argument is not against PRAYING, but against RECITING.
A. “Go to God and confess your sins in repentance and then put your faith in Christ.”
B. “Pray this prayer after me. Father, I admit I am a sinner….”
The danger is generally seen in the “say this after me” prayer in which the penitent repeats the words of the evangelist instead of simply expressing his heart to God.
It’s not about prayer, but about recited prayer.
For me, the issue is determining that a person is truly repentant and ready to believe. I never lead an entire congregation in a sinner’s prayer, but if I was talking to someone who expressed repentance and a desire for Christ, I would feel free to help them find words for their prayer.
IT would seem to me that the danger of confusion increases exponentially if you have a whole congregation go through the prayer or even pray it in front of the whole congregation. Get these people into personal conversations with knowledgeable believers!
That’s me. NOT saying that’s the only right way, but that’s my way.
I don’t even have a problem with the “repeat after me” type of sinner’s prayer, if it follows a clear gospel presentation and appeals for a genuine expression of heart change rather than a superficial and meaningless ritual.
I firmly believe that the exact same evangelist-led Sinner’s Prayer can be prayed by two people—with the first genuinely converted by grace through faith and the second falsely professing an insincere conversion.
I don’t know about any straw men, but the problem in this situation with an evangelist led “repeat after me” type of prayer, is not the Sinner’s Prayer itself, but the false professor praying it. I don’t want to blame to process itself, because the process also is blessed of God to lead many people to genuine faith in Christ.
That’s why I say it’s not about the repeated prayer….it’s about the heart of the person repeating it.
*the* process itself
Thanks Dave. There was a time in my Christian life, I too believed all you had to do was “Pray the Prayer.” Of course I am not saying God won’t save a sinner praying it. That is up to the Holy Spirit convicting the person praying. But as you know 2 Corinthians 5:17 tells us when Christ saves, the person has a life change.I have seen people praying the prayer just to get me to shut up!
Jim Luders
Yep. Hope all is well on the other side of the state.
I still say that baptism is the “sinner’s prayer” (see the post I wrote with that title a couple of years ago).
Throughout the book of Acts, it is the consistent initial response we see to conviction by the gospel and Spirit unto a desire to follow Jesus.
Acts 2, they ask Peter what they must do and he says, “repent and be baptized.” Then they went and baptized 3000 of them. Acts 8, the Ethiopian eunuch says, “look, water! What prevents me from being baptized?” Paul and the jailer, etc.
In 1 Peter 3, Peter even writes that baptism saves us, not by washing the flesh, but by appealing to God for a clear conscious–that’s about as straight up “prayer of salvation” language as you find in Scripture.
But we as Baptists (of all people) have removed the immediacy from baptism and say, “okay, we’ll baptize you in a week or two, or a month or two, or after your finish this membership class,” so our “sinner’s prayer” has come in to fill the gap.
My $0.02 🙂
Amen, Brother.
It is my theory that this is why baptismal regeneration became popular so quickly, Mike. When someone came to Christ, the first thing they did was look for water to baptize him in – no classes, no vetting, no instruction. Believe and get baptized – generally in the same hour, not just the same day!
So much so that people began to confuse the act of baptism with the process of salvation – much like they later did with “going forward” or “praying the sinners prayer.” The act that accompanies salvation and testifies to its reality often becomes confused with the salvation itself.
Good thought.
That would probably go back to how well we do the “teaching” that Jesus commanded after the baptizing. 🙂
To paraphrase a former prof of mine: “I’d rather risk erring on the side of thinking too much about baptism than too little.” Too often I think we go the “too little” route as we treat it as something to get tacked on later.
I understand WHY we’ve changed our process so much from the NT process, but it makes me wonder. The idea of someone being saved and then thinking about baptism for weeks, months, years, before actually going into the water was as foreign to them as fog machines and laser light shows.
I wonder if we gain or lose by all our classes and vetting processes prior to baptism.
That’s quite a rabbit trail.
It is… perhaps another blog post! 😀
Mike and Dave,
I think the immediacy of baptism or the lack of it is dependent on the culture. If confessing Jesus as Lord is a risk for life or living, then those taking that risk are far more likely to be genuine. And fr 1st century Jews who were ostracized fro their synagogues and communities, confessing Jesus was a risk. And for Gentiles, taking Jesus as their ONLY Lord and thus de-lording Caesar was a risk not undertaken lightly.
But in America, where for 200 years being a Christian was an accepted rite of culture, and the rejection of Christianity put one with odds with their community, baptism should not have been a quick ‘profession” of faith.
Now that the culture is swinging to marginalize Christianity and putting or will be putting one at risk to lose face in the community [still not as bad as 1st century so ostracization was] maybe sooner than later baptisms will be a better method.
Dave, I like this line “We must never give people the idea that reciting a prayer is somehow a saving act, or that going forward is, or that getting baptized or taking communion or doing good works or anything else is. Salvation comes by the grace of God to those who feel the weight of their sin’s guilt, call to God in repentance and place their faith in Christ.” That kind of boils it down. But, I will say that we all (those that confess Christ as Lord) have recited a prayer,….maybe not like the Pastor might have liked or led, but we did.
Of course I meant Christ, not “Chris”. 🙂 I write that name a lot! Might need to work on the other more 🙂
That seemed an edit worth making. I went ahead and changed that for you.
I believe if you pray the Sinner’s Prayer and mean it, you are saved.
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2009/09/saved-by-sinners-prayer.html
David R. Brumbelow
I think you are missing the point, David.
The way the prayer is used, there is sometimes a danger that someone might pray the prayer and think that they are saved BECAUSE they prayed that prayer.
OF COURSE if a man sincerely prays confessing his sin and trusting Christ he is saved. But the danger is that even though the evangelist/pastor might say, “only pray this prayer if you mean it” the person in the pew might get the wrong idea. We have to be very careful there.
There is danger in the public recitation of the prayer and I think it should be done with the greatest of care to make sure people don’t get false assurance.
But you are most certainly missing the point, David. The problem here is not those who pray sincerely, but the danger of praying the prayer and putting your faith in the prayer and not in Christ. That is, in my experience, an ever-present danger. I don’t think it means we abandon leading repentant folks in prayer, but I think it at least means we ought to be VERY careful.
I am not sure I’d use the line-for-line, “pray after me” technique too often. It is so prone to misunderstanding.
I believe one of the few times our Lord Jesus Christ used the word justified ( 5 times ) was in reference to a Sinner being justified after praying” Lord be merciful to a me a sinner”. If it was good enough for the Lord it is good enough for me.
I find myself arguing one side because only one side is arguing their side here, but that’s a weak argument in my mind, Greg. The sinner did not receive justification because he recited a prayer, but because he humbled himself in repentance and sought God.
I don’t think that passage is soundly argued as justification for unexamined use of the Sinner’s Prayer and the “If it was good enough for Jesus it’s good enough for me” – well, I’m not sure how to respond to that.
Point not well taken!
I believe he was justified because he was chosen before the foundation of the world regenerated before he exercised faith : wait that is eisegesis not biblical accurate to the text. He who calls upon Lord shall be saved.I wasn’t calling for the ” unexamined use of the Sinner’s Prayer” i was just pointing out that certainly seems to be a sinner’s prayer.
John 4:10 “Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”
i just kinda of think that to ask is to pray isn’t it.
Peace
Greg,
You said:
“i just kinda of think that to ask is to pray isn’t it.”
Yes, but that isn’t the point. Neither is Calvinism, of which I am a 5 pointer.
The point isn’t whether people should or shouldn’t pray. The point is that although there is nothing wrong with the sinners prayer, maybe it has been misused.
Your examples are not about the Repeat-after-me-sinners-prayer which only goes to show that maybe such a prayer is not a Biblical model, since in the Bible people pray without such prompts and aids.
Greg, I’m pretty sure that I never made an argument based on Calvinist doctrine or argued regeneration preceding faith.
If you know me you know that I’ve developed an allergy to Calvinism discussions on this blog, so I generally stay away from them.
I was simply pointing out the utter weakness of your argument – not making any argument from Calvinism. It would be my fondest hope that we could keep Calvinism and anti-Calvinism out of this.
Greg,
But Jesus didn’t tell him to say that.
And neither did Jesus say, “repeat after me”.
The people who prayed, “Have mercy on me,” did so from their own minds and heart WITHOUT having to be told what they needed to say.
Wouldn’t you say a good Gospel presentation leaves its hearers knowing what is required of them to be right with God?
Yes? Then what is the need of the “Repeat after me sinners prayer”?
I wasn’t arguing for a 123…. repeat after me type of prayer. I am pointing out the time Jesus said time a man prayed and asked God to be merciful and he was justified.Yes a good Gospel presentation is a must. Lewis Sperry Chafer said if you get to the end of your sermon and urge men to believe and they say believe what you have failed.
Greg,
What then were you arguing for, or better yet, who were you arguing against?
No one is saying prayer isn’t a component of salvation.
Having come out of a WoF styled environment and churches, for me the misuse of the Sinners Prayer (or something very much like it) is very real. Perhaps, if some Southern Baptists were more knowledgeable about what goes on in other type churches, they would not be so quick to dismiss the danger that such prayers or recitations actually have on Christianity as a whole.
I was apart of churches were the “alter call” was 2/3rds of a service that “lasted” 2 hours. The pastor, or the speaker would continually say things like “I know there at least one person out there who the Spirit is working on!” They would go on and on until that one person came down. Sometimes they would repent and believe; sometimes they would “receive” the spirit. As I was beginning to be pulled out of that environment (thank the Lord!) I began to notice it usually were the same people going up nearly every other week. I began to notice people talking about “loosing” their salvation, and so they must pray the prayer again.
Now I know as SBC folk we believe in Once-Saved-Always-Saved, or Perseverance of the Saints, or whatever you want to call it (in the end they have the same functional result), but I wonder is that a blessing or a curse? Could we not have people who are emotionally drawn to say a prayer, then live their life with no functional change in their lives, and go on living thinking they do not have to respond again no matter what because, they said the prayer, they are saved, and OSAS right?!
I also want to throw out there that the Sinners Prayer issue in the SBC is also tied to our bloated membership rolls. I know in most (if not all) SBC churches, if a person is baptized in that church they become a member and are on the roll. They are there on that roll even if they never attend. For many churches it is an excruciating ordeal to “purge” those rolls because, after all, they said the prayer, they were baptized, they are then members, and we must keep them on the roll. Heaven for bid we actually remove that kid who was baptized at 8, stopped attending at 16, and is now 30 still a member, but the parents are still members, and they know their little Johnny is saved even though he is in rehab for the 3rd time, has been divorced twice and has 4 kids with 4 different moms.
I believe it is all interconnected, Sinners Prayer (Confessions of Faith in general), quick baptisms, and ghost membership rolls. I don’t have a solution, and don’t know if there ever can be an easy fix.
In an altar call, which result would you rather have?
A. Two TRUE professions and One FALSE profession.
B. One TRUE profession and Zero FALSE professions.
I would rather have A. No one aims for false professions, but it is an occupational hazard that when you call people to repentance and faith, some of them are going to do a lousy job of getting saved, which is to say that they are not really going to get saved at all.
I can speak with the greatest clarity of thought of which I am capable, and sometimes people will misunderstand the message and make a false profession. Sometimes, they come down the aisle, say all the right things, get dipped in the baptistry and then we never see them again. It happens. It breaks my heart, but it happens.
Now, we probably can and should ask WHY it happens. The prevailing wisdom is that it happens because the evangelist has been careless. But that’s a pretty man-centered explanation, right? Would it not be true that false professions happen either because (a) God decreed that such would happen before the foundation of the world, or (b) God foreknew and allowed but did not cause the false profession to take place? This time, I’m going with B.
If we are willing to accept God’s Sovereignty over the true professions, I think we have to accept His Sovereignty over the false ones too—whatever that means to you.
Sure, we do the best we can to be as clear as we can possibly be and offer the invitation with integrity. Then, we leave the results to God, accepting false professions as part of the price of genuine ones.
In an altar call, which result would you rather have?
A. Two TRUE professions and One FALSE profession.
B. One TRUE profession and Zero FALSE professions.
But these aren’t all the options, and we can run this into silliness for no reason. For example, which result would you rather have?
A. Two TRUE professions and One FALSE profession.
B. Three TRUE professions and Zero FALSE professions.
I don’t see how this helps forward the conversation.
In your scenario, of course, I prefer B. I prefer the option that results in the greatest number of TRUE conversions, regardless of how many false ones there might be. I want to catch the greatest number of fish possible (TRUE conversions) regardless of how many I THINK I have caught (FALSE conversions) that fall back into the water.
Here’s one that might clarify matters even more.
Which would you rather have?
A. One TRUE profession and Ten FALSE professions.
B. Zero TRUE professions and Zero FALSE professions.
I would choose A.
The way this helps forward the conversation is to clarify that our goal is not equally to call forth TRUE professions while making absolutely certain that no FALSE professions ever take place. Rather, our goal is to seek as many TRUE professions as we can, while communicating as clearly as possible, regardless of the FALSE professions that inevitably occur in any process of evangelism.
Sure, we try to reduce FALSE professions by being as clear as possible. But ultimately, we are fishing for TRUE professions in our evangelism, and that is to be our focus and desire.
The thing is, whatever scenario we create and ask “Which would you rather have” everyone is always going to pick the one that looks best, with the best ratio of true professions to false professions. This doesn’t prove anything one way or another about a preacher saying a “sinner’s prayer” for someone to repeat. You asked earlier, “For all those who have problems with the “Sinner’s Prayer,” I am at a loss to figure out what the alternative might look like.” I think the problem is we are looking at what others are doing for the alternative rather than looking in the scriptures. I’ve looked in the book of Acts at the some 20 or so conversions, or times when when people believed on the Lord, and there is nothing that looks like our modern “sinner’s prayer” and the emphasis is always on believing, not praying.
Rick,
You said:
“I can speak with the greatest clarity of thought of which I am capable, and sometimes people will misunderstand the message and make a false profession. Sometimes, they come down the aisle, say all the right things, get dipped in the baptistry and then we never see them again. It happens. It breaks my heart, but it happens.”
I agree with you that even though one publicly presents the fullness of the Gospel, many of those who hear fail to understand, which is why the altar call should only be the start of their path to God or as CB and Tarheel have mentioned, the culmination of that path that started earlier with counseling.
[See their comments further on down the page]
The one coming forward should be able in their own words express their desire to repent and surrender to Jesus as Lord.
[and thus no need for the sinners repeat after me prayer]
I am not arguing just pointing out the scriptures that indicate that ones faith could be expressed as a “sinners prayer”.Have a great day Sunday’s coming PEACE
I can count on one hand how many times I’ve done a “repeat after me” mass prayer.
I tend to talk alot toward the end of my presentation more about surrender and submission to King Jesus – calling those in attendance who desire to do so to come forward so that we can chat briefly and talk after the service – Or grab me after the service, or get with me about an appointment (or something similar) . I do this for a number reasons – one is so neither the person who comes forward nor myself feels rushed. I prefer more in depth conversation than the time allows for during an altar call. Also I do want to avoid casting the impression to all those present that the words of a pastor dictated prayer Is somehow magical or more powerful than thier own personal communication with God.
Like I said I do this for numerous reasons – here are a couple more: First, I want both them and I to feel comfortable that they actually understand the gospel and have embraced it. Second, I want to physically and personally show them the Scriptures – instead of doing a “repeat after me” prayer I encourage them to, based on the promises of the Scriptures, Determine their own wording.
I’ve got to say I’ve heard some of the most beautiful prayers over years.
I’ll also add Very rarely in my over 20 years of ministry most of which I’ve done this way – I’ve had very, very few “get saved get dunked, disappear” situations.
I’m not saying that the way I do this is the only way – I’m just saying that at least for me this way of doing it has yielded significantly more converts to disciple than what I think we’re identifying here as “false conversions.”
I think Tarheel’s comment is a good comment. I think it makes sense. it has been my experience that most of the people who “come forward” / “walk the aisle” / “respond to the invitation” or however you might desire to identify what it is that I do after preaching the gospel is because they have already responded to the presentation of the gospel earlier in the week and the “coming forward” is to make it known to the church (a public profession that they are now Christ followers) that they have repented of sin and have believed the biblical gospel.
it is my opinion that if we preachers/pastors/Christians would do more in the field/community/neighborhood in sharing Christ as we go about our daily lives, we will have fewer “false converts” and more “genuine converts.”
In other words, in most cases I already know a person is coming forward at the time of invitation because I or somebody has already interacted with him/her during the week before.
In regard to the “time of baptism,” I baptize people when they desire it, usually the following week or week afterwards so they can invite people they know to come and see their public testimony of faith expressed in their water baptism. This often brings about the opportunity to share the gospel with one/two/some/or many of those who “witness” the “witness” of the one being baptized.
I agree with CB here and would add that if we did a better job of not just caring about a person when they first accept Christ but making a point of discipling them, we would have fewer conversations like this about the “methods” of seeing people coming to Christ- whether “sinners prayer” or “revivals” or what not.
The best cure for “easy believism” and “false conversion” is robust, ongoing discipleship. I truthfully don’t think you can really say you are evangelizing if you are not also discipling. Jesus connected the two in the Great Commission. I see no reason to separate them.
absonjourney has the win here. Part of the abuse of the sinner’s prayer is that the full Gospel is often not preached. I’ve heard countless John 3:16 sermons that leave out any mention of the words “sin” or “repent” or anything like it. On the other hand, there are plenty of new professions of faith that don’t have a full understanding of the Gospel. Discipleship is the answer. It is a far more egregious error to count heads at the tent meeting, get them dunked, and then leave them to fend for themselves ideologically by completely ignoring the “disciple” part of the GC.
I don’t think I’ve seen these in this conversation yet from Romans 10:
“Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved….”For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
It seems, from Romans 10 at least, that for all our talk about inward faith & repentance, that this passage seems to emphasize some kind of calling on the Lord to save them, confessing him as Lord.
Now, even so, I don’t think it is saying that a person who hears the Gospel, and has a silent heart response of “Yes, I believe that! is not saved until they verbalize a prayer, but it does cause one to think before belittling a verbal response.
Right on Andy- I don’t think anyone should belittle verbalization of ones profession of faith – I think you rightly pointed out that confession is a byproduct of genuine faith.
Agreed. I think Andy makes a good observation on the subject of one’s receiving and surrendering to the gospel of Christ.
Andy, I hope I am not perceived as one who is belittling a verbal response, for that is not my intent. A response is expected. On the other hand, I believe it is important to distinguish between the heart belief which leads to justification and the mouth confession which leads to salvation (deliverance). I think Romans 10:10 does not mean public confession is a prerequisite for salvation. (Which I don’t think you are saying either, but this text is important to the kind of discussion we’re having.) If we examine the following verses, we find that another act of the mouth (which we often use as an evangelistic text) — calling on the name of the Lord — is done by those who have already believed in Christ (Cf. v. 14 how shall they call on him whom they have not believed).
The nature of salvation described (which is a “deliverance”) in any given text must be gathered from the immediate context and context of the book. I think we often bring the meaning of “salvation” with us when we come to a text. Imo, “salvation” in verse 10 is not our initial experience of belief and eternal justification by faith, but a deliverance of our lives from the world and to Christ. When he was talking about justification by faith in chapters 3 and 4, Paul never used the word salvation. Other times he uses it in Romans doesn’t seem to focus on our initial belief experience (as most of us likely mean when we use the term. For example, Romans 1:16 is a deliverance in the ongoing life (cf. v. 17) and from the wrath of God against sin incurred in this life (cf. vv. 18-32). Romans 5:10-11 is deliverance secured by Christ’s resurrection life. In Romans 8:24 deliverance is ongoing (In this hope that we have, we were and continue to be saved). Romans 11:11 is deliverance of the Gentiles, at least some of which is in this world. Romans 13:11 deliverance is in the future, since our “salvation is nearer” than when we first believed.
Just some thoughts on an alternative way of looking at Romans 10:10.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a well done sinner’s prayer that comes on the heels of a well done Gospel presentation. When that occurs, false conversions, while unfortunate, are God’s problem, not ours. That is not meant to be flippant. The problem that can occur with sinner’s prayers and altar calls is when we try to do God’s job for him.
Sinner’s prayer abuse is closely tied to altar call abuse, and when we try to elevate a methodology to inviolate status. Altar calls can be fine, but they are a method, and are not employed by everyone, nor need they be. But invitations are not optional. If you haven’t invited people to Christ, you haven’t preached. If a sermon does not end in Christ, what good is it?
” If a sermon does not end in Christ, what good is it?”
Yep.
Might I go a step further? If the *entire* message is not not rooted in Christ and the text of Scripture – then what good is it?
I hate to hear “preachers” present moralism, social/prosperity gospel trash, chase rabbits and pet agendas or whatever for thirty minutes and then tack Jesus on the end for the altar call – it really hacks me off in fact.
(I do not think that is what you are suggesting Bill Mac or CB in his agreement of your statement – I just wanted to say that and here seemed like as good as place as any…LOL)
Tarheel,
Agreed. I think Bill Mac would agree also and that was his implication and most certainly it was mine. . . . although, I might chase a few rabbits from time-to-time.
Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Acts 2:21 ‘AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.’
I just want to say that Dave Miller has written a very good article, here, which I agree with. Very balanced and good, Dave.
Also, to be saved, we must call on the Lord….whether it’s speaking out loud, or praying inwardly…we must ASK God for the gift of salvation. We don’t just wake up, one morning, and realize that we’re saved….that somehow, someway, poof, we were magically saved, and didnt know what in the world happened to us. No, we must respond to the calling and convicting of the Holy Spirit, and ask the Lord to save us. And, some lost people are so depraved, and so far away from anything about God, that they feel like they can’t pray, or wouldn’t even know where to begin. So, helping them pray is a good thing. It’s not a bad thing. I mean, HELPING someone talk to God, to ask for salvation, should be something that a Christian would love to do for someone else. Right?
Also, about the mass prayers….They also can be done wrong, or right. I’ve seen an Evangelist lead a group to Christ. My daughter got saved….really, truly saved….at one of these. I saw many, many others get saved at this same mass leading of the Evangelist. BUT, he did it right. He really talked to them like it was one on one, and he lea them to repent and believe. I mean, he really did it right.
So, just to be clear, we should certainly stress repentance and faith….Acts 20:20-21. And, if we stress repentance and faith, then using a Sinner’s Prayer is fine. It’s not “easy believism.” Easy believism is when repentance is not preached. Easy Believism is not good, But, using a Sinner’s Prayer is not necessarily Easy Believism.
Anyway, good stuff, Dave.
David
” Easy believism is when repentance is not preached. Easy Believism is not good, But, using a Sinner’s Prayer is not necessarily Easy Believism.”
This is true. Well stated, Vol.
BTW, on behalf of Vol, let me just give my opinion. I do not believe he has ever in his life as a Gospel Preacher and Pastor ever promoted anything near a false gospel, or abused his pastoral position when he shares the gospel of Christ with a lost person in public worship or in private conversation.
Let me also state, that although I have strong disagreements with many things Rick Patrick writes and have little-to-zero respect for excuses he gives for his spin on truth about the SBC (Yes, I do question his motives frequently regarding anything to do with SBC entities and personalities.), I do believe that what I have said about Vol above can be equally attributed to him.
I know that most of the guys I know who use what has become known among us as the “Sinner’s Prayer” do not preach, teach, or personally share a watered-down gospel.
Of course, we all know some guys, both pastors and evangelists, who do this and we need to expose and rebuke them and not promote them.
Thanks, CB. And yes, I have known a few people, who really did preach “Easy Believism,” and who acted like gunslingers trying to get another notch on their belt. They should be rebuked and exposed. I agree.
David
Thanks, CB. I guess. Sort of.
Shoot, when a compliment is that backhanded, brother, it may just be better not to say anything at all. 🙂
Sorry once again for our earlier misunderstandings and my part in any offense.
As I shared when we spoke by telephone personally a while back, I hope we can put those matters behind us.
Anyway, I wish you all the best.
Nothing backhanded about it, Rick. I was just stating what I believe and if it is taken as a compliment or not is of no consequence to me.
I believe you preach the biblical gospel. I also believe you put great spin on issues regarding to SBC entities and personalities and I know you did a hatchet job on me.
Rick, I believe you are such a great “Master of Spin” that if Clinton and Trump would hire you as their campaign managers, we would elect them both as POTUS, with one being president one week and the other the next.
So, take that as a complement, Rick. You are the best Spin Doctor in the SBC. You are so good, you actually believe your spin yourself. . . . but I don’t.
Dave,
I remember reading a book a long time ago called Revival and Revivalism by Ian Murray. In it, he explains what he considers to be the differences between the First and Second “Great Awakenings”, which according to Murray, involve at the core different perspective on soteriology. I’m oversimplifying, but Murray says (as I recall) that the First Awakening emphasized biblical preaching, holiness, and that the fruits of this preaching were repentance and faith. In the Second Awakening, an emphasis developed on methodology, such as creating an environment that was conducive to conversions. For instance, whereas in the First Awakening, people came forward spontaneously at the end of a sermon, by the Second Awakening, you have a more developed sense of altar call, formulated prayer, etc. Or, in the First Awakening churches over-filled and then moved the service into a tent or a barn, where in the Second, they started in a tent or a barn, as a technique to humanly incite divine activity.
If Murray is correct, then this discussion is hardly silly at all, and in fact, reflects diverging philosophies of ministry and belief about the sovereignty of God in salvation. It seems to me that no one opposes the idea of a person praying to express faith in Jesus, any more than it seems to me that no one opposes the idea of a person crying over their sin. But in both cases, these are outward expressions of some inward conviction. Where, I think, the disagreement comes into play, is when these outward expressions become the starting points or means to inward conversion rather than the expression of inward conversion.
Hope this helps the discussion.
Moz
This is a serious question, not snark. What is the deal with SBC evangelists? Or at least the ones I have been exposed to? We haven’t brought in an evangelist for quite awhile. I always thought it was odd to hire an outside preacher for a week, someone we didn’t know, and tell our preacher to sit down.
Anyway, their methodology was just so formulaic, I wonder if it is being taught in seminary. So often the people who come out to “revivals” are existing church people. Sad, but that’s the way it is. So when the altar call comes, the formula begins. It is like the evangelist is desperate for some action at the front. After he calls for people to come up for salvation, that’s never the end. Then he goes on to the rededication phase. After that one is exhausted, it finishes with the “doubt your salvation” phase. This is, in part, what turned me off altar calls so profoundly. Are evangelists evaluated by the number of altar visits? Is someone keeping score?
Bill Mac,
I will take a shot at an answer to your question.
First, I want to state without reservation, there are many good evangelists out out there and many are Southern Baptists. I have used several.
However, there are some who use some less than ethical methods. I think there are two major reasons some use these unethical methods.
1). Some are just ignorant. They are theological dwarfs. They simply do not have the theological depth to do any better. They copy what they have seen others do without any serious thought as to whether it is biblical or not.
2). Some, even though many of them actually know better because they have been taught better, do it for the money. Sadly, if an evangelist is known for “getting large numbers of people saved,” they become more popular and become in greater demand and are able to receive greater “love offerings.”
It comes down to money and ignorance.
It’s kinda like secular politics and . . . .maybe Baptist politics also.
Bill Mac, what you have described is a caricature of what you believe an evangelist is. I have used several of the finest evangelist we have as SB. They feel no pressure except to present the Gospel. I hope you don’t feel you are the only one to have figured out God produces results. Finally, if I had a revival scheduled for over a year and only my church members showed up I would consider myself to have failed as a leader in this instance. Revivals are hard work when done right and I am convinced that is why they are a dying animal.
This Sunday morning before we serve the Lord’s Supper I will say, “If you are convicted by the Holy Spirit that today God wants to save you then you need to pray something like this…”
At the close of the invitation I will then instruct if you haven’t been born again and followed the Lord in Scriptual Baptism then this ordinance is not for you.
Evangelists, revivals, Sinner’s Prayer and practicing the Lord’s Supper as the BF&M describes, I am also a dying animal.
Here is the issue Dean, if your point of reference for the state of evangelists is limited to fairly compact circle of trusted friends, mentors, churches, ect; than you may not have an accurate view of what is going on. My experiences with “evangelists” while outside of the SBC, fall in line with and match what Bill Mac has shared here.
If you use the same few evangelists and cycle them every few years, if you only use a “new” one after asking about them from fellow pastors you know and trust, than you may just not know about the problems in the SBC as a whole. Whether it is an evangelist or the use of the Sinners prayer, if you only are familiar with similar minded people the news of problems with evangelists or the Sinners prayer might come as a shock to you. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. Pastors should guard their pulpits carefully, only letting people they can trust in them. Having a close knit circle of trusted friends that can share thoughts and opinions and perform “background checks” on prospective evangelists/guest-speakers is not the problem. And I would say you should count yourself blessed you are not dealing with these issues. But I would also warn, that do not dismiss these concerns just because you are not personally aware of them.
It is not a caricature at all. This is my experience. I’m sure there are good evangelists out there. Perhaps they stay closer to the bible belt.
“Revivals are hard work when done right and I am convinced that is why they are a dying animal.” Dean, for some reason when I read this it made me reminisce about how things used to be. I came on the scene in the late 1950s, only having heard about two week revivals. When I was a kid a revival meeting spanned from Sunday to Sunday. Some churches had both morning and evening services, and all the churches near one another tried to schedule theirs so their sister churches could visit and help. We played little league baseball in the summer, but we did not go to practice or play in any games during our revival week. Folks planned ahead to try to be the ones to feed the preacher.
Then churches cut back to Monday through Saturday, then Monday through Friday, then three days (not all, but this is the trend). Whatever was going on in the family (such as baseball games) took precedent over attending every night of the revival, and you had to work at it to find someone to see the preacher was fed every meal. Now I am emphasizing the extremes, but this in a quick look represents some of what has happened. I realize that revival comes from God and not the efforts of man, that there is no special rabbit’s foot found in for how many days a meeting is scheduled, and that we can have revival without a “revival meeting”. But this trend does reflect how we as a people (generally) have become consumed with ourselves over and above the work God has called us to do.
“Pastors don’t use evangelists any more” is a statement I started hearing 25 years or so ago.I didn’t much use them and when I did, the experience was generally less positive than using other pastors.
The last ‘revival’ I attended where an evangelist preached was typical: lots of screaming, showboating, and emotional manipulation. I would never use this evangelist and he is regionally popular.
Deserves its own topic…
The last evangelist to come to our church was a student from one of the SBC seminaries, I don’t know which one. It was a disaster of such epic proportion that I can’t even write what happened. I do remember though, that as I was driving him from the airport, that I had to remind him who Pontius Pilate was.
Yeah, I tend to be protective with the pulpit. I’ve heard enough bad or non-biblical sermons in my life that I don’t like going with unknown wildcards.
We did a 5 week series of Sunday evening “revival” services this past spring. Four guys were from my association, one from another nearby church, all 5 good friends so I knew exactly what I was getting.
Whether for pulpit supply or a special service, I either have to know the person or they have to be recommended by someone I know well.
And it’s not about secondary theological homogeny either. Only 1/5 would identify as a fellow Calvinist, and one calls himself a Baptist Arminian. But all have a deep love for Jesus, a deep love for scripture, and preach the word, not emotionalism or their own ideas. That’s what I want, and that’s what I want to know for sure a person will bring before I hand over the pulpit.
Amen, Mike.
I have never been one to invite a person to do a meeting for me because he was my friend. I have never invited a person I was not familiar with to do a meeting for me.
I have become close friends with some evangelist after I used them. Bob Pitman, Junior Hill, John Phillips, Danny Lanier and Don Taylor are a few men who I love dearly, some are in heaven now.
When I think of my friend, Junior Hill, walking through an airport shuffling alone or driving through the night after preaching, knowing his health is poor and the effort great I get ticked when someone says, “What’s the deal with Southern Baptist Evangelist?” These men have lived a life separated from their families for the sake of our King. I prefer to thank them for their service.
I would like to point out that no one can come to Christ unless God draws that person. I totally believe in Irresistible Grace and the drawing power of the Holy Spirit. A sinner is saved even before they take that first step to the front of the church. If there is no drawing power, there is no first step. All we can do is to invite the sinner to come forward. I am totally against a sinners prayer lead by a preacher. I think we should give an explanation to the convert of what just happened, give a little advice and allow the convert to pray their own prayer and then confess Crist before the church.
There are too many dried up sinners prayers being repeated. These prayers are taking their toll on the church. This is one of the reasons folks will not hang in there to the end. We have to stop preying on children.
God has used, and continues to use Revival Meetings and evangelists. Some do not know this because they haven’t grown up in this type environment and have never used an evangelist.
There are bad evangelists, just as there are bad pastors, but not all.
Go to revivals and evangelism conferences in your area. Find the kind of evangelists that fit your situation.
An evangelist will do things differently, but if he didn’t, then you don’t need him there in the first place.
A pastor can learn from an evangelist, and your people will enjoy hearing someone different.
Putting a priority on a Revival meeting, bringing friends to church, winning the lost to Christ, is good medicine for the pastor and the church members.
We have usually paid the expenses of the evangelist, paid his motel, and taken an offering with the explanation that 100% goes to the ministry of the evangelist. People will give more when they know exactly where their money is going.
If it is an unusually high offering, perhaps that will make up for the fact he cannot preach a revival every week and for the weeks he was paid very little.
A good offering usually means your people like him, were blessed, and like their pastor.
The expenses may be large for a small church, but emphasize this is just a once a year expense, and it will strengthen your church.
Sometimes another preacher can reach people in your church and community that you cannot.
Some of my best memories growing up in a preacher’s home are revivals and evangelists we had through the years.
Learn a little more at:
http://www.sbcevangelist.org/COSBE-Home.html
David R. Brumbelow
Southwestern Seminary has revival teams who, each March, preach revivals throughout the nation.
Some of you might be interested in contacting them.
http://swbts.edu/campus-life/revive-nation/
David R. Brumbelow
I like the sinner’s prayer. When I was a young person, the sinner’s prayer articulated what at the time I could not. It guided me in what to say to a God I had no comprehension of. I just knew that I was a sinner and needed Christ as my Savior. Even if the person is not genuine in saying the prayer, they have knowledge of what they have to be willing to give up for Christ. That is something most do not forget and many later in life remember that prayer and in their desire to be saved, they pray that prayer.
I also like revivals to a degree. It focuses on our need for a Savior and I think even long time Christians need to be reminded who are first love and allegiance is to. Christ. I am so grateful for those who care about those who are lost.
My biggest problem with having people recite a sinner’s prayer is that there is danger in people resting in a ritual instead of focusing on the work of Christ and their personal response to the work of Christ by their saving faith. I have talked with many (usually ages 45 and older) that have said they walked an aisle and “prayed the prayer” years ago but still doubt if they are saved. They tell of nothing changing in their lives. This could be a result of either a non-regenerate situation or lack of discipleship. Only God knows.
As a result of the doubt, the people I have spoken to reveal to me they are trusting in their “prayer” which is the formula they were told to follow, instead of trusting in Christ. As a pastor I show people from the Bible what it means to be saved instead of telling people, “pray this prayer and you will be saved.” I share that it’s not a prayer that saves but it’s the power of the gospel and our response of faith to the gift of God. Responding by faith isn’t always a prayer (although prayer can be involved), but it’s a lifestyle of living for Christ. This response of true biblical faith in Christ reveals itself over time.
I don’t desire to argue over the sinner’s prayer. My desire is to reveal to people what God says about sin, the Savior, and the gospel.
Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Also, we’re saved by repentance and faith…Acts 20:20-21.
We are not saved by “living a lifestyle for Christ.” We’re saved by grace thru faith. We’re saved by surrendering our lives to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. And, the way to express that is to PRAY and ask the Lord for His great gift of salvation.
If people are making false professions, then it’s either their lack of understanding, or else it’s some Christian’s lack of stressing repentance and faith. But, if someone wants the gift of salvation, then they must ask for it, by faith. We have to pray to express our desire to repent and believe.
David
Sir, I did not say that we are saved by living a lifestyle for Christ. I said responding by faith isn’t always a prayer (although prayer can be involved), but it’s a lifestyle of living for Christ. Part of this lifestyle is prayer.
Confession is made unto salvation. If you believe it, you will say it. You will also then live it. It’s not works that save as James points out, but its works as a result of being saved. Salvation calls for a response both verbally and in the way we live.
My point is that it may be possible people have been lead to believe that if they say a prayer (perform a ritual) then all is good between them and God. Prayer can communicate to God that we have taken the step of faith. I don’t disagree with the content of a sinners prayer. What I disagree with is the fact that many may have been misled to believe “If I do this then all is good.” People are taking the sinners prayer as a ritual and not a sincere, faithful response to the gospel. So, we as pastors need to communicate better this truth.
Yes, I agree, Robbie. We need to preach repentance and faith to people. And, just saying a prayer doesn’t save anyone. I agree. But, a person does express repentance and faith to God thru prayer. Romans 10:9-10 and other passages are very clear on this. We must CALL on the name of the Lord to be saved. I mean, we don’t just wake up, one morning, and say, “Hey, something happened to me. I just got saved. Wow!” No, we must make a conscious choice, and ASK God for His great gift of salvation. We must turn to Him, with all of our hearts. And, I agree, we must be willing to FOLLOW Him, if we’re truly gonna be saved.
God bless you, Brother.
David
It is hilarious to me that an article written encouraging us to look at the big picture, is torn apart by nitpickers who missed the whole point. Especially amusing is that the ones who claim more “discernment ” are the ones who miss the point the most.
https://www.facebook.com/sermonindex/videos/10154939671969199/