It is raging. I’ve been travelling so much and only keeping up with blogging by phone, but I’ve seen the Steve Gaines video all over the internet.
Bart Barber has posted the two videos I copied below and gave an interesting analysis of the topic, comparing the Sinner’s Prayer to a wedding vow – both can be either a real commitment or just the recitation of empty words.
I thought this might be a good Sunday discussion here at Voices. So, here are two divergent youtube videos – one by David Platt and one by Steve Gaines.
Now, here is Steve Gaines.
Here’s my two cents, and its probably worth about that much.
1) The “Sinner’s Prayer” has some inherent dangers – chief among them the “pray after me” recitation I’ve seen. People can be led in prayers that they do not understand or really believe and can think that these prayers somehow saved them. The faith can be transferred to the prayer, as if it is magic. I’ve seen such things happen and it bothered me.
2) On the other hand, how do you lead someone to Christ without suggesting some kind of prayer expressing repentance and faith? Don’t we all use some form of sinner’s prayer to express our faith?
I think this is another illustration of our tendency to make mountains out of molehills. Wouldn’t both David Platt and Steve Gaines agree that there is no value in the empty recitation of words? (Gaines clearly states this in his video). Wouldn’t both instruct a repentant sinner to pray and express faith in Christ?
And, as to the “ask Jesus into your heart” – that is, again, not as big an issue as some have made it. The fact is that when we trust Christ, we are indwelled by Christ’s Spirit and so it is not incorrect to ask Jesus into your heart. On the other hand, the key issues of the Scriptures are repentance and faith. We need to focus on repentance from sin and placing faith in Jesus more than “asking Jesus into my heart.”
I think it is not wrong to use that language, but it is perhaps not the best language to use to express biblical faith.
Once again, is it possible we’ve let our natural tendency toward polarization magnify our differences?
This criticism is evidence of a much deeper problem that what it illustrates: “People can be led in prayers that they do not understand or really believe and can think that these prayers somehow saved them. The faith can be transferred to the prayer, as if it is magic.” If that is the depth of a minister’s message and invitation, then those listening have many more problems that simply misunderstanding or the misapplication of the prayer.
However, there is the common perception that this objection stems from the criticism of using public invitations period. Since God is the One who effectually calls individuals to salvation (conversion) then the public invitation is either not necessary or additionally seen as lacking significance.
Let me point out one thing in this “debate” and that is once again who it is that is making the charge against the use of the language and the practice as well: calvinists. In almost 40 years of ministry as a Southern Baptist, I have never seen the need to defend the “sinner’s prayer: until today.
I am tempted to place this in the same category as the marriage amendments in our nation; both are needlessly being challenged.
><>”
Bob, thank you for once again pointing to what isn’t there. Is it impossible for you actually interact with what someone says instead of interacting with what they didn’t say?
Wait… Did Bob just blame calvinists for another issue in which he has a problem with? Real shocker.
“Needlessly being challenged.”
Looks like someone hasnt taken the time to assess the damage “Decisionism” has caused over the last several decades.
Needlessly being “challenged.”
The damage has virtually NOTHING to do with the public invitation or the sinner’s prayer and everything to do with a myriad of other problems. My point was this practice would not even be an issue were it not for calvinists propagating it. I am not sure WHY that is an issue with you; your own retort suggests the justification FOR the debate in the first place.
><>”
Bob,
What would those other problems be?
Dave, I’ve run into so many people who claim to have asked Jesus into their hearts, but they couldn’t tell me what it meant when I asked them. The question is, “Are we saved by asking Jesus into our hearts?” The answer is no. No where in Scripture was evangelism carried out in this manner. We turn from our sins and trust in Jesus alone to reconcile us to God. It’s His death and resurrection in our stead that justifies us, not “asking Jesus into our hearts.”
My biggest problem with the emphasis on asking Jesus into our hearts is that someone can do this and still be an unbeliever. So, if I tell someone to ask Jesus into his heart, he may do that sincerely, but never repent and trust in Christ for the forgiveness of sins. So, he’s still lost. But, if I tell him to hate sin and to run to Christ’s finished work to be cleansed due to His death and resurrection, then if he does this and continues believing, he’ll be saved. My main point is that Jesus indwelling us is not the gospel, but something that should be taught in the process of sanctification. Jesus’s death and resurrection to reconcile sinners to God is the gospel. Him indwelling us is the result of the gospel, not the gospel itself.
If the “ask Jesus into your heart” language doesn’t help someone understand the importance of repentance and faith, then why use the language? Tradition? Postmodernism (ambiguous language that is open to interpretation. Even an unrepentant adulterer can ask Jesus into his heart.) I don’t understand why something that needs so much more explanation would somehow help people understand that gospel. This language makes the gospel harder to understand, not easier.
If someone can argue one example in Scripture when the gospel was shared, that the language “ask Jesus into your heart” was used, then it’s a good argument. Otherwise, we’re admittedly carrying out evangelism in a way that the New Testament church never did. I don’t understand why people are defending the practice?
BTW: Paul Chitwood did his dissertation on this subject: “The Sinner’s Prayer: An Historical and Theological Analysis”
Jared,
If i am following what you are saying then, is it the wording YOU use versus the wording others have used that makes the difference? If so that is really the basis behind my statement in the first place and I think everyone understands or most certainly should understand that aspect.
You said, ” if I tell him</b? to hate sin and to run to Christ’s finished work to be cleansed due to His death and resurrection, then if he does this and continues believing, he’ll be saved.” So I can only assume the “if he does this and continues believing” is the perseverance showing through in your theology?
Here is how I see it. WHEN an individual repents and in faith trusts the finished work of Christ on the cross on his behalf, the Holy Spirit takes up residence in that individual’s heart and he is saved, now and forever. End of discussion; instead of a period there, one could put an exclamation point.
So as the calvinist correctly contends, God saves. For the record, the words one actually speak has absolutely NOTHING to do with his or her conversion; it is the work of God in that person’s heart that saves them that is wrought about by repentance and faith in the individual’s response to God’s revelation of Himself and His reconciliatory work in that person’s heart.
That is HOW I see it anyway!
><>”
Bob, you’re reading something into my comment based on your understanding, not mine. I do believe Christians who believe, will continue believing. If the Holy Spirit indwells someone, they will continue believing. I’m not sure what your point is. Once again, it appears you’re assuming I believe something that I don’t believe. It’s frustrating interacting with you because your contention isn’t with historical Calvinism, but with “Calvinism as defined by Bob Hadley.”
Amen. That is the hardest part when dealing with Bob.
He doesnt deal with Calvinism as it has historically been defined or how Calvinists themselves define it (even directly to him), but rather how he defines it and views it.
“For the record, the words one actually speak has absolutely NOTHING to do with his or her conversion”
Partly true, but don’t underestimate the meaning and power of words. Words matter. While a person is not saved by use of the right words, the words a person uses can reveal what the person actually believes. There is not anything necessarily wrong with the prayers described by Platt or Gaines, but they don’t go far enough. A person is not saved simply by a desire for God to come into his life, but by a desire for God to be God in his life, for sins to be forgiven, for temptations to be rooted out, for a dead heart to be made living and new, for Jesus to be Lord of life. But if all I say is, “God, come into my heart and life,” I may mean nothing more than, “Things are not the way I want them to be, come make the bad things better but leave everything else alone.” I’m sure we have both run across this attitude more than a few times. And you’re right, the words of the prayer are not the problem, the attitude and heart of the person is the problem, but why not look for words which help avoid problems of this sort?
These are two important lines by Jared.
“My biggest problem with the emphasis on asking Jesus into our hearts is that someone can do this and still be an unbeliever. So, if I tell someone to ask Jesus into his heart, he may do that sincerely, but never repent and trust in Christ for the forgiveness of sins.”
Many pastors answer the question, “How can I be saved?” with “Simply ask Jesus into your heart.” At that point they then contend, “and start living your life for him and not yourself.
This is a big problem. Scripture doesnt tell us to ask Jesus into our heart. It tells us to repent and believe the gospel. When someone asks how they can be saved, repentance and faith ought to be the answer, not “ask Jesus into your heart. God saves us and the Spirit indwells us, not when we ask him to, but rather when we repent of our sin and trust in Christ.
Big difference. This “ask Jesus into your heart” has led to many false conversions.
I have asked this question before but I do not believe anyone has ever actually even come close to giving me an answer. You wrote, “Big difference. This “ask Jesus into your heart” has led to many false conversions.”
In the calvinist mindset, how is this even possible? Since I have been accused by you of only dealing with calvinism as I see it and not as it is historically defined or defined by actual calvinists, why don’t you, if you consider yourself a historical calvinist… explain to me how on earth it is even possible for there to exist “false converts” in a theological system where no such thing is even theoretically possible?
><>”
Bob,
Straining at gnats…
A false conversion is when an individual thinks himself safe and secure when he is not. It is not a true conversion – the individual is not converted, is not saved.
Straining at gnats… don’t choke.
You did not even come close to answering my question. You made a comment but in the calvinist system there are no “false converts.” There are the elect and the non-elect and as I see it, it does not matter what either believe; the elect will be saved and the non-elect will not and these theological quivers have absolutely NOTHING to do with it.
><>”
Bob,
This nation is full of people who believe themselves saved, but are not. They have never been truly converted, despite their belief. They would tell you they are saved, they would tell you they have been converted, but they have not. This is all that is meant by “false conversion”. It is not a partial conversion, it is not a conversion that someone lost, it is no conversion. It is a false belief held by the person.
Chris,
Trust me I fully understand what a false convert is and am fully aware of the fact that they exist in GREAT numbers. I agree it is a major problem but as a calvinist, what difference does that make is my point?
It is almost as if you guys are arguing about false converts as if that is the only depraved condition irresistible grace cannot overcome. I don’t get it. I can see me making this argument but not a calvinist.
My point is simple. If God efficaciously calls the unregenerate to salvation (conversion) and that is the ONLY way that they can be saved, then what is the issue with calvinists on false conversions? I understand the reason you guys make this an issue; you are saying this is what is wrong with the SBC…
But apparently calvinism is NOT the answer because according to you guys, the ONLY people who are saved are those God calls, the elect, so the problem is not in the calling, either way. For the consistent calvinist, there is no “false convert.” They do not exist. That is MY point, which you are not acknowledging. Do not fell bad though, no one else has either.
><>”
“For the consistent calvinist, there is no “false convert.” They do not exist. That is MY point, which you are not acknowledging.”
There is nothing to acknowledge because you are wrong. If a false convert is defined as one who believes himself saved but is not, then there is room for false converts in any theology. I find it astonishing that you insist the Calvinist cannot believe in the possibility of false converts. This is not a complicated theological issue, it is almost nothing more than an issue of nomenclature, of taxonomy. What do you think Calvinists should call the unsaved person who believes himself saved?
Why do you repeatedly insist that Calvinists must adhere to your terms and your ways of defining our beliefs? You say I have not answered your question – it is because you are trying to force on me something that simply is not the case. I have answered you. You don’t like my answer, fine, so be it, but don’t keep up the lie that no one has given you an answer.
Chris,
One of us is doing a very poor job of communicating.
Is it true that calvinists believe that only the elect will be saved and the non-elect will not be saved? Is it not also true that for the calvinist view of soteriology, God efficaciously calls the elect and those He calls WILL repent and exercise saving faith and those who are not efficaciously called CANNOT or WILL NOT repent and be saved? These are very basic questions and can be answered “yes” or “no.” Some do not want to answer them that way because it is easy for anyone to understand…
Am I misrepresenting you with these questions? Do these questions that I ask make “Calvinists adhere to your terms and your ways of defining our beliefs?” I do not think so.
Want to try again?
><>”
and
First, it makes no sense to say that in Calvinism false converts do not exist. There is nothing within the tenants of calvinistic soteriology that logically leads to a person thinking they are saved when they are not.
In Matthew 13 we have the parable of the soils. The soil represents the condition of the heart which the word of God falls upon. The good soil would be the elect–those who respond in faith to the word and endure. The soil has to be made good for receiving the seed before the seed is planted, we can’t do that–only God can change the heart to do that, and if the heart is changed to have good soil, the seed will grow and produce fruit. Hence God’s effectual call upon a regenerated heart that leads us to respond to the word in faith.
All other soils are of the non-elect. Using a different metaphor in John 10, Jesus told a group in Jerusalem, “you do not believe because you are not part of my flock” (verse 26)–notice the order of things, a person who does not believe is in their disbelief because they do not belong to the flock of Jesus, regardless of if they have heard his voice yet (10:16 & 27–for when they hear it, they will ultimately follow). Those non-sheep are those who also have the bad soil for hearts–they will ultimately reject the Gospel no matter how many times it falls upon them. Yet some of them have soil that seems to produce faith, but it does not persevere. They respond but they do not remain–false conversions.
With that, though, is the reality that we don’t know the soil condition or the sheep-hood of people.
But we do know we have a call to share the Gospel truth with everyone we can, because God not only ordained the ends (who will be saved) but also the means of that salvation (the Gospel message). So as Paul said in 2 Corinthians 2:14-17, we speak in Christ and God always leads us in triumph as we spread the knowledge of him everywhere. But in that spreading, to some “those who are being saved” we spreading “life to life” and to “those whoa re perishing” we spread “death to death.”
So we confront false conversion not b/c it’s somehow counter-intuitive to the sovereignty of God in salvation, but b/c we preach with the hope they will recognize their error and be saved (that they are indeed elect), and we preach with the knowledge that in God’s sovereign plan the only way the elect are saved is through the Gospel.
Second, false conversions are a concern b/c how we spread the Gospel is intrinsically linked to the holiness of the church. God has made us his holy body, called out to be lights in a dark world. False conversions leave that light a little dimmer as the church stands that less holy.
Bob,
But your questions have absolutely nothing to do with this issue. The fact remains that there are people who falsely believe themselves converted. They think they are saved, but they are not. Thus, they are false converts – people who are not really converted. Whether or not they are numbered among the elect is irrelevant.
Reminds me of the time I was out visiting with another man from the church I was at. We went up to one house and he led the couple through, essentially, a brief presentation of the Romans Road. At the end he asked if they would like to pray to receive Christ. They said yes, so he led them in the prayer. We got back in the car and he said, “Praise the Lord, two more souls in the kingdom.” I replied that seed was planted, but I didn’t think there was actual evidence of salvation. Saying words is not proof of a changed heart. And in fact, we never saw this couple in church. Several more visits were made until they moved, but they had no interest. They heard the words, they prayed the prayer, they believed themselves okay because the church man told them they were saved, but there was no change.
This is Platt’s basic concern and he is 100% right. We sell the gospel cheaply. It is offered freely to all, but it is a free gospel that costs everything. True repentance, true faith, must be present.
Platt is also right that our language is not biblical, so I will typically avoid saying “invite Jesus into your life” or “ask him into your heart,” I call sinners to repent and trust – the language the Bible uses when calling sinners to salvation. Sinners need to pray, but not a meaningless “Jesus come into my heart” but a true repentance, more along the lines of “Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” But not just words. At the end of the day, asking Jesus into your heart is all well and good if it comes from a heart that is truly repentant.
Those critical of Platt’s comments are not, I think, listening to what he is saying. We’re so hung up on sentimental methods that we miss the truth.
As for Gaines’ comments, he does not really touch on Platt’s concern. Platt raises a problem with a particular method being abused in a way which gives false hope, and doing so with language that is unbiblical.” Ask Jesus into your heart” and “invite Jesus into your life” are not biblical phrases. Doesn’t make them necessarily bad, but the point is valid: you will not find this way of evangelism in Scripture. I thought Gaines’ attempt to make a biblical case for “ask Jesus into your heart” was, at best, very forced. At worst, he missed the point of all of those heart-passages.
When Jesus tells us to receive him, he is not telling us “ask me into your heart” he is telling us “hear what I say, believe it, and apply it. Receive all that I am – what I have come to do, what it means to your life.” Later in the New Testament the same call takes another form: repent and believe in Jesus for salvation. Jesus was not offering a simple formula, “just receive me,” he was calling for a life-changing reality, “embrace all that I am and have come to do.” The same thing is meant when we read of receiving and believing the gospel. I’m sure Gaines would agree this is more than mental assent – more than just saying, “Okay, I think that is true.” Even the demons believe, and they tremble. We need more than just assent. We need more than just a nod of affirmation. We need repentance and faith.
I suspect Gaines would agree with all this, but in his desire to defend sentimental means of evangelism, he has distorted things some.
Great words Chris.
We often try to sell the gospel in a way that says, “No need to pick up your cross and die to self, just say this prayer so Jesus comes into your hear.”
Funny… this comment wasn’t up when I started my reply… I know, I took a while to write it–but the last half especially is pretty much what I said in different words below… So I guess I’ll agree with this. 🙂
What evidence from a brand new Christian would you like to see? You wrote they never attended church, but did anyone see changed in their life? If I am reading you right the fact that they asked Christ into their hearts, ROMANS 10, was not enough. They needed to do more to prove they had really been saved. Hmmmm. No discipleship, no follow-up, but they gave no proof of their salvation other than Romans 10. I guess Paul was wrong.
This is not a calvinist, non-calvinist issue. This is about people turning the Gospel into a works-based faith of their own vision. What would PROVE their salvation to you? Speaking in tongues?
This should not be turned into a “Calvinists oppose asking Jesus into your heart” and “non-Calvinists think this is fine to do” debate. In the past and up to the present some “non-Calvinists” as well as Calvinists have objected to to this practice. Accepting Christ by Jerry Reynolds, a non-Calvinist Missionary Baptist, is one example of this.
“Accepting Christ” (the terminology referenced by Steve Gaines) was troubling enough to certain churches and associations that they left the SBC over it. Most of those churches were in Missouri, Tennessee and Kentucky, though some were in other places. Here is what one writer from the Polk County Association in Missouri said about their departure from the Missouri Baptists and SBC in the 1950s. “The culmination of the strife came when there was a card in the Sunday school literature (printed by the SBC) where a person could fill in their name over a statement which read: ‘I hereby accept Christ as my personal Savior’.”
These churches were not and are not Calvinists. I just point this out as information that this is not and never has been solely a “Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism” debate. This case should be made on the Bible and not who we are.
If I’m talking to a person about faith in Christ and them turning to him, I will pray with them if they want to pray, but I don’t require them to say a prayer then and there.
We converse about what repentance means and what faith means. We talk about how salvation is a life-long process and the need for faithful perseverance, and with that how repentance is a constant turning from sin to cling daily to the cross. We talk about how the Spirit brings them to life and not only empowers them to believe but stand firm in faith.
Since, then, we don’t focus on an unbiblical “do this one thing and done” moment, I don’t feel the need to have them pray a prayer right on the spot.
Instead we try to start where they start over and over in Acts–okay, you realize you’re a sinner lost and dead w/o Christ, you realize that by turning to him alone in faith and trusting nothing else you have salvation, and you realize that it is God alone who completely and forever forgives your sin through the sacrifice of Christ, now let’s baptize you as that “first act” of expressing your faith and starting the process of following Jesus and living as his disciple.
BTW–as a comment on the videos, here’s my problem with what Dr. Gaines says… Platt’s point, which Gaines is pretty much responding to, is this accept or invite Jesus into your heart thing is not that Jesus is sitting back hoping we will say to him, “Here’s my heart, I invite you (or allow you) to come in.” Rather he is the sovereign God we must humble ourselves before.
The passages that Gaines quoted, with the exception of the ones about the Holy Spirit (which consequently are always coupled with Jesus sending him to us, not us sitting back and saying, “Oh yes, Spirit, you may enter in!”), are about receiving or accepting the truth about Jesus for who he is.
Even John 1:12 comes right after 1:10-11, where the world did not “recognize” him though he created it, and his own “did not receive him” though he was their promised Messiah. They flat out rejected him, they did not accept (believe) who he was or what he did for them. John 3:11 is clear on that–“We speak what we know…but you people do not accept our testimony.”
This “receiving” is not asking Jesus to come in to our lives–it is instead lining up our understanding of Jesus with the revealed truth of who he is and humbling ourselves under him as Savior and Lord. This isn’t “inviting” him in, this is a complete paradigm shift we undergo. And I think Gaines misses the point on the idea of “accept/receive” here and what Platt and others are saying about it.
Chris,
In light of your “Unity” resolution for the SBC … do you think it is wise and helpful to say, “I suspect Gaines would agree with all this, but in his desire to defend sentimental means of evangelism, he has distorted things some.”
Distorted?
Can you explain this strong accusation?
Thanks!
Reply
I’m not sure what disagreeing with someone has to do with my resolution, except for the fact that the resolution calls for unity even when we disagree, so I can say I fully support being unified and working alongside Gaines even though we disagree on this.
As for my comment on distortion, I don’t mean it as a strong accusation but an observation of his use of the text. We are all prone to distort the meaning of passages. I daresay we all do it more often than we would care to admit. Such distortion – misuse, misrepresentation, misapplied context, etc – is not something we do in order to deceive, but mistakes we make as we seek to draw out this or that point. I understand what Gaines was trying to say, I understand why Gaines used the passages that he did, but nonetheless I think it resulted in the passages being distorted – used in ways they were not intended to be used. Or, if looking more generally at the theology of salvation, what was distorted was what it means to be saved. Again, I’m sure Gaines and I would agree, but in his desire to affirm extra-biblical phrases, his teaching about salvation came across as little more than mental assent.
No, “one-size-fits-all” language could possibly work since each person is an individual. What may be understood appropriately by one is too esoteric for another.
I think you are right: mountains versus molehills.
What will we be “against” tomorrow?
If someone prays “Jesus, take me to heaven when I die”, are they saved?
Maybe, but maybe not. That is the equivalent of asking Jesus into our hearts. It is a result of salvation. It is not (clearly) how we are saved (from the perspective of our response).
It is not totally wrong, it is just not the best language.
So .. how’s our system working?
How would a hiring system be viewed that produced a 37% job attendance? How would thatHR dept mgr be viewed?
What’s that? We’re not talking about jobs? Yeah .. we’re talking about souls. I’d think we’d want to be a lot more concerned about them than about jobs.
And I never use the “sinner’s prayer”, either. If I’m discussing the matter with someone, I ask why they want to be saved, how, why they need it, etc. Then I tell them to just tell that to God, and give them the opportunity.
Platt makes valid points, as does Gaines.
One problem with Platt is he ignores the use of receiving Christ and that in fact CHrist does “dwell in our hearts by faith.” But he’s absolutlely right about the watered down gospel problem.
Gaines, overdoes the use of ‘receive’ in scripture but there are a few telling verses that it would be good Platt et.al. acknowledge.
The real problem in Gaines’ message is saying “Nobody is saying that” when talking about the over use of watered down gospel presentations and the concurring sinner’s prayer. That is why our churches have so many lost people on their rolls and in some places affecting church policy etc.
THis is a problem. I understand what anti-calvinist Bob is saying about why is a lost ‘false convert’ anyn worse off than any other lost person? Because Bob, for one thing they have been lied to about what Christianity is, they are a detriment to the witness of the church, they make the church visible even more lukewarm, and they have been innoculated against the gospel, oh and they tend to reproduce lostness. These are just some of the issues arriving out of the easy believism of the church in the last 100 years.
THis doesn’t mean that EVERYONE who asked Jesus into their hearts is lost or guilty of magic, to be sure. But it does mean we should do a better job with the gospel presentation.
One more point. Dave Miller said:
“…how do you lead someone to Christ without suggesting some kind of prayer expressing repentance and faith? ”
After a presentation of the gospel and explanation of what GOd is looking for in us, and exhortations to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, for forgiveness, for the indwelling Spirit; do we need to hold their hands if God is mollifying their hearts unto salvation. I say, don’t give them a “Hallmark Card prayer” and let God do His work.
Enjoin them to call upon the name of the Lord, and leave them to get back with you when they know they are saved and ready to be baptized.
The problem with this method is we have to give up our control to the Holy Ghost.
Clark,
Thanks for your input. For the record, I am a non-calvinist.. there is a difference. No one is going to argue the point of responsible ministry and that goes much deeper than this issue of a sinner’s prayer and asking Jesus into your heart. Frankly, it is much adoo about nothing. That was basically the point of my initial statement to Dave. If a pastor has a problem with a shallow presentation of the gospel as is being posited in this article and comment thread, then the individual saying the prayer has more problems than a false conversion if he is following an inept teacher/preacher. However, there is one thing that I believe is paramount that has not even been mentioned in this thread, is the work of the Holy Spirit in this process. Even in the most inept gospel presentation, the Holy Spirit is the One who touches the individual’s heart and is solely responsible for our conversion. That comes from a non-calvinist. We are all certainly responsible to be as Scripturally sound in our gospel presentation; that is why I adamantly disagree with the posits of calvinism.
Now… to your comment, “Because Bob, for one thing they have been lied to about what Christianity is, they are a detriment to the witness of the church, they make the church visible even more lukewarm, and they have been innoculated against the gospel, oh and they tend to reproduce lostness. These are just some of the issues arriving out of the easy believism of the church in the last 100 years.”
My point is that for the calvinist the statement “they tend to reproduce lostness” is not true because for the calvinist, God and God alone is responsible for lostness, not the influence of false converts. That is MY point. Your comment about the “easy believism in the church in the last 100 years” is exactly my point. It is true there is a problem. My point is that calvinism cannot be the answer because if calvinism is correct, then those who are saved are so because of God’s doing and those who are not saved are equally of God’s choosing and the false converts are only acting according to their depraved natures…
><>”
If I’m scoring this debate, I’d have to say, “Advantage Gaines.” Heart language is biblical, prayer is biblical, and there will never be a day when praying to express faith in Jesus and ask Him into your heart is dangerous. In fact, NOT doing it is dangerous.
Platt almost implies that if we stop this Sinner’s Prayer business we will eliminate or at least reduce false professions. I don’t think that’s true at all. Are there false professions? No doubt. Can we blame them on the Sinner’s Prayer? No way.
By the way, and I say this as one who has been deeply blessed, moved and inspired by David’s preaching, but there’s something about his facial expressions, or perhaps a speech or pronunciation issue, that at times makes me a bit uncomfortable. I’m speaking more of delivery than content. Does anybody else sense what I’m talking about? I don’t mean to be rude, and perhaps it’s just the emotional passion in his voice, but it’s unique to his preaching in that I don’t hear any others who sound like this. It’s not a weakness–he’s an amazing preacher whom God is using mightily. Just because I side with Gaines on this issue does not indicate a lack of respect or appreciation for the tremendous talent God has given to David Platt.
Yes, heart language is biblical language, yes, prayer is biblical, but that does not mean all language about the heart or about prayer is biblical. In this case, the concern is not quite so much about the language itself but the many who have been led to a false assurance through superficial presentations of the gospel that are rooted in this language.
One need only look at a generation or so of people who have been raised in this language and claim the name of Christ to get a sense of whether or not such methods and such language have established faithful believers. While the method may not be the issue, I think the concerns Platt raises are valid and worth interaction.
Rick Patrick,
I have been absent from making comments on Voices of late. Nonetheless, I do find this post, these videos and this comment thread very interesting.
I have read your comment here a couple of times now and I want to make a statement to you if I may.
You stated: “Heart language is biblical, prayer is biblical, and there will never be a day when praying to express faith in Jesus and ask Him into your heart is dangerous. In fact, NOT doing it is dangerous.”
I believe you to be so very correct here that I am willing, and happily so, to declare this is a worthy hill on which to die. Frankly, this is a hill of such great importance that not even one inch should be given. No, not even so much as a fraction of an inch.
cb, but the issue is not “praying to express faith in Jesus and ask Him into your heart”, but asking Jesus into your heart and life in a kind of incantation meant to save a person by saying the right words. Telling people they are saved when they say certain words is downright deceptive (one reason I’m not fond of leaving in random places tracts designed to lead a person to and through the sinner’s prayer). But we do need to be about calling people to true faith, true repentance, true submission to Jesus as savior and Lord.
So despite the fact the Bible never says that as an expression of faith in Jesus, we have to pray and ask him into our heart, and also gives no example to this… not doing it is dangerous?
Really?
“If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead…” “Trust in the Lord with all your heart; lean not on your own understanding…” “Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Gaines was very clear on the video. Nobody, I mean NOBODY, believes in some sort of incantation or spell or magic words. I believe repentance and faith can most clearly be expressed by “calling upon the name of the Lord.” Whether you specifically pray, “Come into my heart” or “Come into my life” or “Save my soul” is not really the issue at all. Certainly, all of the above should be acceptable ways to express repentance and faith.
If we’re not going to pray something very much like the Sinner’s Prayer, then how exactly do you want someone to confess with their mouth and believe in their heart? The DANGEROUS part, to be clear, is doing away with what Gaines calls the “Jesus” prayer and what many others have referred to as the “Sinner’s” prayer. I like to hear that new convert ask Jesus to forgive them of their sins and come into their heart and life. I always ask them if they mean that genuinely and sincerely.
For those who want to ditch the Sinner’s Prayer, what exactly is your alternative?
Nobody believes it… except all the people who have practiced it as such. Nobody in this forum believes it works that way. Lots of lost people, on the other hand, believe they are saved because they Said The Words.
Rick,
You are on the right track.
For the last several years … I have read one article after another on the Baptist blogs complaining about: gospel invitations, altar calls, the Sinner’s Prayer, the Roman Road, shallow S.S. materials, shallow Baptist preaching, sorry SBC members, bad gospel tracts, patriotic music in worship, man-centered gospel, man-centered hymns… etc. and etc. yada and yada.
This deconstruction of the SBC will continue in the minds and “hearts” of those who wish to turn the ship toward Geneva.
Ron,
Is there not even an inch of recognition that the concern is not Geneva but Scripture? We may disagree on what the Scripture teaches, but grant at least enough charity to recognize that my concern is being true to God and what he has given in his Word. I have no interest in Geneva, I have great interest in God.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. It seems that the Calvinists are to blame for all the problems of the SBC. But we can’t lay the 11 million missing SBC members at the feet of Calvinists. There’s some shallowness going on somewhere.
Both sides are deliberately talking past each other.
Calvinists: There is nothing wrong with a biblically solid sinner’s prayer. I’m sure there are some “pray the magic words” people out there, but that is not reason to abandon leading people in an expression of faith in God towards salvation. Don’t do it if you don’t want to, but don’t find fault with others doing it.
Non-Calvinists: “Ask Jesus into your heart” is not the right answer to “what must I do to be saved”. Yes, Jesus comes to live in our heart, just as he takes us to heaven when we die, but we don’t tell people to pray “take me to heaven when I die” as the way to be saved. It is an effect, not the cause. If the sinner’s prayer is not an expression of repentance, belief, and confession of Jesus as Lord, then you may well be misleading people. By all means use the sinner’s prayer, but make it a good one.
Rick… what you quoted there is Scripture… amen. But none of that says, “Ask Jesus into your heart.”
I think you’d agree with this–but I don’t see Paul’s point in Romans 10 as “Do this once and you’ll be saved.” It is rather speaking about our life lived out. In salvation we are going to call out to God, we are going to praise him as Savior, we are going to follow him as Lord… yes, there’s a first time we do it, but it is moreso a lifestyle thing–that is that complete paradigm shift where we “receive” the truth by truly lining up our understanding with what God says.
But from that I don’t think you can then imply that you must say some sort of “Jesus prayer” to have new life and be saved. Maybe the apostles in Acts led the people in prayer before baptism, but the pattern we see is: gospel, do you believe this?, yes, okay, baptism.
You say: “I like to hear that new convert ask Jesus to forgive them of their sins and come into their heart and life.” Fine. If that’s how you want to lead people, go for it… but to jump from there to say it’s dangerous not to have someone pray such a “Jesus prayer” when the Bible doesn’t tell us we have to?–that’s exalting something as a requirement when it’s not.
What I do with people is talk with them about the Gospel and ask them, “Do you believe this and understand what it means for your life? Are you willing to follow Jesus in all things?” If the answer is “yes” then we talk about how baptism is that first public profession of faith and the beginning of discipleship.
That’s not to say that I don’t ever pray with them or for them or discourage them to pray… but I don’t require them nor suggest to them to say a prayer about Jesus coming into their heart.
Mike,
Thanks for taking the time to share how you do it.
You said: What I do with people is talk with them about the Gospel and ask them, “Do you believe this and understand what it means for your life? Are you willing to follow Jesus in all things?” If the answer is “yes” then we talk about how baptism is that first public profession of faith and the beginning of discipleship.
Me: Do you have a biblical model for the way you do it? Do you have a place in the Bible where you find the two (2) questions you ask people? Did Paul ask the Phillipian jailer, “Are you willing to follow Jesus in all things?” When you ask people, “Do you believe this” are you asking them if they believe the facts about the Gospel or the Savior of the Gospel?
My point is … no matter what we use … somebody can critque it to death. If this works for you Mike … then please win thousands. However, there are many like Steve Gaines, Rick Patrick, and myself … who like to share the Gospel the way we’ve been trained and been doing it.
Blessings!
“””“Do you believe this and understand what it means for your life?”””
So, I’m assuming if someone can give you all the right answers to your questions you consider them, “saved” and therefore you baptize them.
I also assume, from what you say about salvation being a “lifestyle thing” that you have some objective criteria to judge by.
In both cases, you seem to be the judge of how or when a person is saved, judging by some criteria and based upon some formula as evidenced by something that the candidate, “says.”
I’m not sure that is all that different from “praying at the altar” with someone. I also think it is at least as “subjective” and perhaps even moreso.
Since there is no prescriptive text of anything that looks anything like an “evangelism training,” I think it is possible that the particular words that are used at the time of salvation may not be the key to the issue.
I think to cast doubt upon the salvation of people as Platt does is less than helpful. It is not different than what was taking place in the “rebaptism revivals” of Bailey Smith and others.
Personally, when I’ve prayed the sinners prayer with people as tears of repentance have flowed down their faces, I think they have been genuinely saved.
The fact that some of those people gave evidence of not living up to the Scripture’s teaching of what a fully functioning disciple is, does not mean for me that they
were not truly saved.
The more I hear Platt speak, the less impressed I am with what he has to say. I can see an easy leap from how he speaks to how many charismatic, cult-leaders start out. “I’ve got it right–everyone else has it wrong.”
Just doesn’t pass the “smell test” for me.
A little clarification–I don’t actually have a checklist I go down of 2 questions or 10 or whatever. But the ideas of recognizing our sinfulness and need for a savior, plus the ideas of what Jesus accomplished on the cross are things that have substance, definition, and right answers. That comes out in conversation just as I hope it does for you before you lead them in a “prayer at the alter.”
My criteria for how a person is saved is what’s in the Bible–faith (i.e. believe and repent)… but believe and repent do have substance: believe in what, repent from what? So I’m not seeing the sense in this whole subjective thing you’re getting at. But I do know believe, repent, and be baptized are actually in the Bible in reference to salvation. This whole praying at the alter thing and whatnot might be modern day methodologies but they are not biblical requirements.
As to Platt’s criticism–in certain cases it is spot on. I know Gaines said, “No body’s saying that” about just “say this prayer and you’re good,” but there are–I saw it growing up Southern Baptist, I’ve seen other pastors and so-called evangelists do it. Even saw a form of it at my association’s youth camp last summer. In other cases is Platt’s criticism a bit harsh, yeah.
But he’s right in that the Bible never says “accept Jesus into your heart” or “pray a prayer to be saved.” My criticism of what Rick said centers on going to the opposite extreme–if you don’t do some form of it then it’s dangerous. That’s not biblically founded, so let’s not elevate the methodology of man to scriptural truth.
But here is an actual danger… in Matthew 13 Jesus says there are some who receive the word with joy and yet they fall away and prove unfruitful. He says in Matthew 7 some will say “Lord, Lord, did we not…” and he’ll say, “Away, I never knew you.”
If someone shows what seems to be genuine repentance and faith, tears or no tears, “sinner’s prayer” or no prayer… then I am going to believe that is real faith and treat them as being in Christ. But if they come to a point where that Gospel message they supposedly believed is having no impact on their life, then I am not going to put them into the category of Matthew 13:23 and say “you are saved” because they said a prayer with tears. Instead I would plead with them to repent and keep their eyes fixed on Jesus, and treat them like an non-believer if they don’t.
Mike. I get what you are saying. But I think it looks a lot like being saved by faith and staying saved by works. At what point is a lack of production (your seed metaphor) indicative of bad soil?
So if you are doing a funeral of a man who grew up in church, made a profession, but never produced noticeable fruit, then you would say with confidence the profession was false?
That seems to be very close to a doctrine of works. I’m sure you reject this conclusion, but it is the reason I reject Platt’s proposition
The Gnostics thought they had the valid Biblical authority. Likewise the Jews.
By the way. I just led a lady in the Sinner’s Prayer this afternoon. If she was only faking the tarts or it was just a momentary thing, I don’t think one can blame it on the prayer
By the way. What about the keys of the kingdom? Does not a disciple have the authority to declare a person has met the Biblical criteria for salvation?
Make that tears not tarts. iPad spell checker
Just because something is biblical, doesn’t mean it will get you saved. If “ask Jesus into your heart” is prayed along with repentance and faith in Christ, however that language is articulated, then there isn’t much of a problem. But can anyone say that the proper response to the question “What must I do to be saved?” is “ask Jesus into your heart”? Anyone?
Question two: If someone comes to you and wonders about being saved, and they tell you that they have repented of their sins, believe Christ rose from the dead, and that He is Lord. Here’s the question: Do you then lead them in the sinner’s prayer for their salvation, or are they saved already?
The obvious (I hope) answer is that they are saved already (assuming they are being truthful). At that point the sinner’s prayer will do them no harm, but is not necessary.
A good distinction – a person who wants to “pray the prayer” – and means it – is likely someone who is already saved. Salvation does not come once they have recited the right words, it comes with the faith and belief that leads them to desire to pray.
Chris,
Do you have a biblical model for this picture?
Among others, Acts 16:31 – though I would add that a full picture of salvation must draw from multiple sources in Scripture. These are summary verses.
But in this summary, the call is for belief. If you believe, you will be saved. Paul does not here – or anywhere, that I recall – say that if you believe, then pray, you would be saved. The prayer is itself evidence of belief – why would I pray for salvation if I did not already believe? Because we believe, we pray and confess and repent and trust.
Chris,
I would suggest to you … Romans 10: 8-13.
Turning in …
Ron,
First, just to be clear: I am absolutely, completely not against sinners coming to God in prayer for salvation. The concern is over the many who have gone through our churches, picked up our tracts, or heard our evangelistic presentations who have prayed a prayer, walked an aisle, etc, were convinced that they were saved, and continued on their lost way. I’m almost convinced that the majority of our salvation stats are false conversions, for they show so little fruit. If we truly saw as many people being saved as we claim to see being saved, the convention – nay, the nation! would not be in the shape it is in. Being born again means something, or it means nothing. Scripture tells us what to look for as the fruit of the new birth. When that fruit is completely absent, you can be pretty certain of the cause: this individual needs to be saved. And far too often I know of churches – and my own experiences in my own church! – of individuals praying for salvation only to show little to no fruit after a short time.
I want sinners to pray. I want sinners to have faith. I want sinners to repent and believe and be saved. I do not want sinners to be walked through a process from steps A to Z and come through it with their fire insurance which lets them go on about their lives without another care in the world as to their salvation. That is the issue here: do our most common methods of evangelism have inherent problems that give lost sinners false assurance? I think the answer is unavoidable and demonstrated by vast numbers: yes, we have given false assurance.
And to modify what I said in my original comment: I don’t mean to say that salvation can be had apart from prayer, but that prayer is not in itself an act that saves. A person is not saved because he prayed a certain prayer, but because, believing in Christ, he turns to God in faith. That turning to God in faith *is* prayer. He is praying, he is trusting, he is confessing, he is believing, he is repenting. And he is doing all that only because he already has faith, trust, belief that God is who he says he is and will do through Christ what he says he will do. I would not pray to God with faith unless I had faith in what he said. And if I have no faith, then the words I think or say are without merit and will not save me. That which shows I am saved is not the prayer, but the faith which leads me to pray.
Now, as to the passage. As I mentioned, Acts 16:31 is just one verse of many. As an aside, I was astonished at the post on SBC Today which downplayed the necessity of systematic theology which is itself nothing but an attempt to understand the fullness of biblical truth. We must not look at individual passages in isolation, but at the Bible in fullness. So Acts 16:31, which says if we believe, we are saved, somehow fits in with Romans 10:8-13.
One thing that stands out to me in Romans 10 is that confession in verse 9 is not a confession of sin (repentance) but a confession that Jesus is Lord. It is a verbal, outward testimony to who God is. I don’t think Paul is talking about prayer in verse 9, he is talking about a public witness – something we often affirm at baptism, that believers are to make public their new faith in Christ. The closest Paul gets to mentioning prayer is in verses 12-13 when he says that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved, but even there that calling upon the Lord will only happen in one who believes the Lord will do something to save him. The faith is already present at that point. There will be prayer, there will be calling to the Lord, it won’t necessarily be out loud, and it certainly won’t necessarily (or even likely) follow our ordinary ritualistic evangelistic prayers, but it will spring from a heart of faith and the one who calls to God with this kind of faith will ultimately be saved.
I say ultimately because I think one aspect in view here is Paul is not speaking of our current experience of salvation. In other words, we recognize different “stages” (sort of) of salvation. One common way of expressing these is to say, “I have been saved (justification), I am being saved (sanctification), I will be saved (glorification).” When the Bible mentions salvation, it could talk about what God did at the cross, what God is doing now through the Spirit, or what God does when he calls me home. At the end of the day these are all talking about the same thing since it is all part of one process guaranteed in Christ. But I think the “being saved” in Romans 10 is similar to the “salvation” of 1 Peter 1:3-5, that those whom God has caused to be born again are being guarded through faith for a salvation that they have not yet seen in fullness but a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. Because God guards them through their faith, they will surely reach this final salvation, but it is something they have not yet seen.
Back to Romans 10, Paul is saying that those who go on confessing Christ and believing in Christ demonstrate that Christ is at work in them and that they will ultimately be saved, and all this because they have called upon the name of the Lord in whom they have believed, and he has promised to save them.
Which has sort of led me on a winding path to say, prayer is not an act which is necessary to save us but is an expression of faith, of belief, by which we are saved.
Amen Chris.
The ‘language of salvation’ ?
The Eternal Word Himself . . . . no one else has the words of eternal life
We cannot deal with the past. We can only deal with the present. It seems the proper thing would be to get it settled once for all rather than debate what may or may not have happened in the past
Evensong from the words of the Sarum Primer
(King’s College Choir, Cambridge)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qif2rfBmcTA
‘God be in my head, and in my understanding;
God be in mine eyes, and in my looking;
God be in my mouth, and in my speaking;
God be in my heart, and in my thinking;
God be at mine end, and at my departing.’
(Words: Sarum Primer, 1558)
Another thinking about ‘immersion’ of our being into Christ from the prayer of St. Patrick (‘putting on the whole armor of God’):
“Christ with me,
Christ before me,
Christ behind me,
Christ in me,
Christ beneath me,
Christ above me,
Christ on my right,
Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down,
Christ when I sit down,
Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.”
Gaines’s point about “asking Jesus into your heart” is valid if he explains what he explained in this sermon when he tells someone to ask Jesus into his heart. How many preachers who tell children to ask Jesus into their hearts are going back to Ezekiel and unpacking the Spirit’s indwelling, and the sinner’s need for a new heart? I’ve never heard a pastor do this who used the “asking Jesus into your heart” language.
When I was a child, and I was told to ask Jesus into my heart, I thought this meant that Jesus came into the emotional aspect of me. i.e. “I love you with all my heart.” I didn’t think “I need a new heart because I’m a sinner,” and Jesus will give me a new heart through His death and resurrection to forgive me of my sins.
Once again, the effort it takes to explain the “ask Jesus into your heart” language complicates the gospel instead of clarifying it. Why use the language if it’s not used in the New Testament and it makes sharing the gospel harder instead of easier?
So, Jared. Having a person say “I confess Jesus is Lord.” is acceptable for you.
These words, being the biblical ones will guarantee all who say them are truly saved?
Also. Exactly what intellectual threshold must be reached for salvation to be genuine–bachelor, master, or doctorate?
I’ve had to try to explain the death of a parent to a child. Even after my best effort they did not fully understand the concept. They did however fully experience the reality
My son was “saved” (though not according to your understanding) when he was five years old. I believe he really connected with God even before he completely understood it. In fact. I don’t think he completely understands it now.
I think of the blind man who was quizzed about the “theology” of his healing. He said that he didn’t know much about that but he knew he was once blind but now he could see
Frank, I think in order to be saved, someone needs to respond to the gospel. They must have at least a child-like understanding of the gospel. Our personal experiences are irrelevant because neither you nor I can judge whether someone is saved or not, but we can know how much knowledge the Bible says is essential for salvation.
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”] that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile —the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Romans 10:1-7: 10 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. 5 Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.”[a] 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’(that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).
“Not everyone who says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Mt. 7:21).
Well, I hate to do it, but here goes. Does the order of regeneration and faith impact our view of using the Sinner’s Prayer in evangelism? Every SBC debate is not over Calvinism, but perhaps this one truly is.
Might it be fair to conclude that a Calvinist views such a prayer as an expression of a salvation God has already brought about irresistibly, while a Non-Calvinist views it more as a free will response to God’s offer of salvation to all? Does our doctrine drive our methods?
That has crossed my mind more than a few times in this discussion, but I’ve tried to avoid going there. 🙂 It is possible that you are right, but I’m not yet sure. Yes, I believe the person who prays with faith has already been born again, regenerated, else he would not have faith; yet it is when he receives that faith, when he believes, that he is justified, for as Ron points out from Romans 10:10, it is with our hearts (certainly something Paul means not in a physiological sense, but in a metaphorical way) that we believe and are justified. But the Calvinist will say that yes, there needs to be that expression of faith, that exercise of the will to call out to the Lord, something possible only because of God’s work in the believer’s life, but still necessary nonetheless. The question, then, remains: what does that look like, and what language best expresses it?
Here is a real problem I believe for the calvinist position. Chris wrote, and he is correct in his statement, “Yes, I believe the person who prays with faith has already been born again, regenerated, else he would not have faith; yet it is when he receives that faith, when he believes, that he is justified”
Chris is saying the prayer one prays is evidence of new birth; it has nothing to do with the new birth itself. Notice something else; faith has nothing to do with the new birth either in the calvinist system because God regenerates and faith is the result of regeneration. This is THE fundamental difference in the traditional Southern Baptist view of conversion.
Here is the deal. God cannot do it and then you do it and be justified. When God regenerates, one is justified right then. Now, it can be argued that the fruits of regeneration and justification are demonstrated in confession, repentance and praise for WHAT God has already done but repentance, faith and confession are NOT a part of conversion but the result of it. This is where calvinism breaks down Scripturally and simply is not accurate.
In #53 Chris made the following statement, “And to modify what I said in my original comment: I don’t mean to say that salvation can be had apart from prayer, but that prayer is not in itself an act that saves. A person is not saved because he prayed a certain prayer, but because, believing in Christ, he turns to God in faith.”
In truth, these two statements are actually contradictory statements. In the first statement, Chris says we pray and have faith BECAUSE we are already saved and then in the latter statement, we are saved because we “believe in Christ and turn to God in faith.” These two statements cannot BOTH be true.
><>”
Bob,
I think one of the problems when discussing this is that we all refer to “salvation” in parts, excluding other parts of the whole.
Jimmy Akin’s statement on the ordo salutis (while not full) deals with the pertinent parts under discussion here:
election
predestination
outward call through hearing the gospel
inward call to respond to the gospel through God’s grace
regeneration
conversion (faith & repentance)
justification
sanctification
glorification
In the Calvinistic view this is the logical order. In the Arminianistic view, you all put conversion before regeneration. But justification logically follows conversion.
So, in the Calvinistic view an actual prayer outloud is not necessary, in my understanding, for the salvation process. Hence, a mute person can be saved too.
Les
Bob,
Read the Baptist Faith and Message section on salvation and let me know whether or not my views differ greatly from the traditional SBC views. One certainly does not have to be a Calvinist to affirm what the BF&M says, but it has surprised me how closely the BF&M statement falls in with Calvinist theology.
“In truth, these two statements are actually contradictory statements. In the first statement, Chris says we pray and have faith BECAUSE we are already saved and then in the latter statement, we are saved because we “believe in Christ and turn to God in faith.” These two statements cannot BOTH be true.”
Except they can, because salvation does not involve just one thing. It involves multiple things such as being born again and being justified. Even if they are simultaneous (which I would actually agree with you on that – while logically regeneration precedes justification, in reality they are essentially simultaneous), they are still not the same thing. Unless God does a work in our hearts, we will never have faith. But once he does a work in our hearts, we must use the faith he has given us to turn to him.
My basic point, which gets back to the original issue, is that prayer itself saves no one. No one is saved because he said certain words to God, but only through a heart of faith. For the purpose of the discussion in this comment, I recognize the Bible’s teachings that the faith with which we trust God comes from God and not from me, but even so, having received that faith, I must exercise that faith for justification.
Rick,
I think our view of when regeneration absolutely does matter in this case. Faith (belief) follows the awakening, the opening of the heart, the scales falling from the eyes, the dead in sins sinner coming to life.
In the Calvinist view, there is no need to ask God to come into my heart when He is already there. He opened it.
This is really about decisionism. One group focuses more on what God is doing and the other group is focusing on what man is doing.
“In the Calvinist view, there is no need to ask God to come into my heart when He is already there. He opened it.”
I had that in mind when I said Gaines distorted some of the Scriptures he referenced. When God talks about the change that needs to happen in a heart, he never says, “Ask me to come in and make the necessary changes,” he says, “I will change their hearts”. I don’t know that it is ever presented as a process which first requires our asking.
Yes.
Not in my opinion. I believe God’s softening the heart makes the person’s free response possible, but still necessary. Not necessarily in the form of the sinner’s prayer, but some kind of response.
Faith is the response. Following salvation up with Baptism is the response. Acts 16:13-15.
I see nothing wrong with praying. But we must be careful as well to not begin superstitions which I think Christianity is full of. I also think that learning to pray for the new believer, which the sinner’s prayer can do is important. But it’s important to not go by ritual and begin a relationship with Christ.
I should say, superstitions which I think modern Christianity is full of.
Debbie,
Satan has never been on holiday or vacation. Therefore, from the first century, there has always been possibility for him and his minions, apostates, reprobates, and godless infidels to seek to attach superstition to the biblical gospel.
Nonetheless, as long as Christ is alive, the Holy Spirit reveals truth to sinners and God is on His Holy Throne in sovereign rule over all existence; men, women, girls, and boys will be saved and made His children until He and He alone brings all things to conclusion and makes all things new.
Debbie, every generation suffers from superstition being superimposed upon the gospel by the children of the devil. Therefore, it is imperative for those of us who know Christ in the truth of the gospel to proclaim such to the ends of the earth and let the devil take the hindmost parts with the rest of it.
Rick Patrick,
I think that in many cases, as revealed by comments in this thread, that you are right in the following statement: “Every SBC debate is not over Calvinism, but perhaps this one truly is.”
Some here seem to desire to hold stringently to a specific understanding of soteriological dogma to the exclusion of recognizing the human response to the gospel of Christ. In their desire to hang on to their position it seems that they refuse to see that any person who recognizes himself/herself a sinner before a just and righteous God and responds in repentance and faith in the biblical gospel will be saved.
Any person who truly cries out to God in repentance and faith in the atoning work of His Son on the cross will be saved. To share the biblical gospel with a person and let him know that if he will truly repent of sin and ask God to save his wretched soul is certainly not dangerous to any living person.
In reality to not share the gospel and give due obedience to God’s mandate of the Great Commission and make it clear to people that if they will repent and trust Christ and Christ alone for the saving of their souls is dangerous.
CB:
This Calvinist agrees with you. All who respond in faith to the Gospel will be saved. The Gospel is to be given to anyone and everyone. This is really two debates: The first is about the sinner’s prayer. I think Calvinists are making too much of this one. A good sinner’s prayer is not a bad thing. The second is about “asking Jesus into your heart”. Ask Jesus into your heart is not the Gospel. It is not the proper answer to “what must I do to be saved?” Now, Jesus does come to live in our hearts, and if that language is mixed in with a good explanation of the Gospel, no problem. But if used by itself (which I’m willing to bet you some good NY BBQ that you don’t do) it is not a good thing. I know people are saying no one does that, but I know for a fact that some do. I know that it is especially used with children.
Bill Mac,
There was a time when we called “Just ask Jesus into your heart” a callus call to “easy believism” or “cheap grace.” Preachers of the biblical gospel did not teach or preach such in the past, nor do they in the present.
I can assure you that is not what I hold as sharing the gospel with lost sinners. Nor do I believe that is what Steve Gaines or Rick Patrick would believe either.
Yet, it seems to me that both have been accused of such here on this thread.
The reason I sometimes have a problem with the sinner’s prayer is two fold Bill. One is that false conversions happen. One prays a prayer which is followed by the words and you can read this in any tract, now you are saved, when the truth is the person may or may not be. False conversions happen all the time. And with those words you are now born into the kingdom of God or you are saved, gives the person false hope.
The other is the prayer becomes the superstition. Repeating words that may mean nothing.
For the record, I don’t believe this is a hill to die on. I do think it’s something we should get our Bibles out, read conversion stories in scripture and read the messages that those in scripture gave.
False conversions happen with any method of evangelism. That is God’s business, not ours. He will sort them out. No one should think they are obligated to use the sinner’s prayer if they don’t want to. It is not a necessary component of evangelism. But nor should we disparage those who do, with the understanding that the prayer is a response to the biblical gospel. If the folks here who use it say that is how they use it, then we have no reason to doubt them.
Nor should those who use it disparage those who do not.
But folks, let’s all agree that we have over 11 million alleged SB “christians” who are awol. Something has gone wrong. It would be nice to find the answer and fix it.
Let me ask this question. Is the “sinner’s prayer” full of words that a new believer would not understand? In other words, we who have been brought up in the church would understand the concept given in the sinner’s prayer, but does a brand new believer unchurched know what they are even saying?
When we tell you this, we do not use words of human wisdom. We speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit’s words to explain spiritual truths. But people who aren’t Christians can’t understand these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them because only those who have the Spirit can understand what the Spirit means. We who have the Spirit understand these things, but others can’t understand us at all. 1 Corinthians 2:13-15
“In their desire to hang on to their position it seems that they refuse to see that any person who recognizes himself/herself a sinner before a just and righteous God and responds in repentance and faith in the biblical gospel will be saved.”
I don’t think anyone has said anything of this sort? The concern is over those who pray a prayer without genuine repentance and faith, not over those who come to Christ with true repentance and faith. All who repent and believe will be saved, but those who pray a prayer without true repentance and faith are not saved. This discussion has wandered all over the map, but that remains the basic issue.
Chris Roberts,
Steve Gaines did not, in the video, advocate “just praying a sinner’s prayer.”
He would tell you, as I would, that any person who is without “true repentance” (godly sorrow) of their sinful position before a just and righteous God will not be saved no matter what they say in a prayer of any kind.
I think some of you on this thread have superimposed a position upon what he stated in the video that is not present in any way. And yes, I believe some of you have done so in order to maintain a position of soteriological dogma. Of course, I believe some have argued against your position in order to promote another soteriological dogma.
Frankly, it is my opinion that both extremes, as exhibited on this thread, are dangerous to the fulfillment of the Great Commission. We have been mandated by Holy God that as we go through life as God grants us opportunity to make disciples.
I continue to state that the statement Rick Patrick made above is a hill of such great worth of which New Testament Christians should be willing to die.
Herein, he (Rick Patrick) is absolutely correct: “Heart language is biblical, prayer is biblical, and there will never be a day when praying to express faith in Jesus and ask Him into your heart is dangerous. In fact, NOT doing it is dangerous.”
Rick Patrick is not advocating rituals, incantations, or superstition here, nor was Steve Gaines in his his address as revealed in the video above. For you, Chris Roberts, or anyone else on this thread to state otherwise is in error and, in my opinion, an effort to hold stringently to soteriological dogma to the point of stubbornly splitting hairs and playing word games.
Again, no New Testament follower of Christ who is serious about Kingdom work and being faithful to the biblical gospel would say to a lost man or woman; “Just pray this prayer and you will be saved.”
Steve Gaines did not state such, nor did Rick Patrick. Anyone who would state, preach, or teach such is not stating, preaching, or teaching the biblical gospel.
CB,
I don’t believe that Steve Gaines or anyone else on here is advocating “just say a sinners prayer” as some sort of magical phrase that saves. But I do think that the tendency to promote the sinners prayer can be dangerous to the process of evangelism and discipleship and serve to undermine our collective witness ergo false conversions filling the rolls.
I used EE for many years and was uncomfortable with the prayer at the end and the accompanying “spiritual birth certificate.” and EE was devoloped by a Calvinist. I never used those.
Can we all at least affirm that praying a sinners prayer after having heard the gospel is not necessary though? how about leaving a person soaking in the gospel message they just heard and urging them to continue to think on these things and then follow up with them to see what God has or has not wrought?
CB–since I’m one of the ones who strongly responded against this statement by Rick, I’ll answer you.
I do not think that Gaines or Rick are advocating a easy-believism “say this prayer and you’re good” false gospel. They clearly are putting content to what they mean in terms of incorporating the fact it must be a response of true faith and repentance. I do think Gaines in the video is stretching the ideas of “accept” or “receive” out of their actual context to defend the “ask Jesus into your heart” mentality–even if he does broaden what he means by that.
But my beef with what Rick said and you so heartily are agreeing with is the idea that NOT “praying to express faith in Jesus and ask him into your heart is dangerous.”
I agree with this part: to not express faith in Jesus is very dangerous…it’s damning. But the second part about praying to ask Jesus into your heart… that phrasing is not from the Bible nor is it a biblical requirement for faith or repentance in salvation. Yet in his own words Rick linked together faith and this idea of asking Jesus into your heart. And he called the lack of not just faith but praying to ask Jesus into your heart “dangerous”.
I never tell a single person I evangelize to pray to ask Jesus into their heart (or as Rick put it another way in another post: to say a “Jesus prayer”) in any way, shape, or form. I tell them to repent and believe–and if they are willing to listen, we talk about what those things mean, and how true faith and repentance will affect our lives in things such as learning the Bible, prayer, church life, character, etc.
Yet to take Rick’s words for what they say, I’m being dangerous.
If I’m leading people on a dangerous path because I’m leaving out such a prayer, then I certainly need to be rebuffed. But since the Bible does not say such things, then I am not going to support the totality of that paragraph you quote as a “hill on which to die,” nor agree with the language thatsays it is dangerous to NOT “pray to…ask him into your heart.”
If someone uses such a prayer with true biblical meaning behind it while evangelizing, then great. But don’t tell me it’s dangerous not to when it ain’t in the Bible.
Dave. You called this a debate
That made me think of how much we’d rather debate evangelism than actually do some.
I take it you are now shutting down your computer and heading out to witness? I’ll pray for a bountiful harvest.
My snarkiness in this comment was not helpful or necessary, I apologize.
SBC VOICES GRAMMAR POLICE CITATION:
YOUR APOLOGY WAS A RUN ON SENTENCE.
(WE’RE JUST HERE TO HELP.)
Chris,
Actually, my goal is to lead at least one person to Jesus Christ per week, by sharing with at least one lost person each day.
Today, I prayed with a 50 year old lady to receive Christ.
So, thank you for your prayers for a harvest. God has said he will honor a “prayer to send workers into the harvest.”
The week before last I baptized a Muslim lady I lead to Christ. So, in the last two weeks, I’m one soul behind my goal.
My “goal year” runs September through August. I still have time to catch up but I am behind and your prayers are appreciated. I should be somewhere around 40 souls, but I think I’m only at 30.
However, I do not blame the Sinner’s Prayer, I blame my sinner’s heart.
Frank: I believe this to be an important discussion. Getting rid of superstitions, finding out through scripture what is superstitions that we have in fact embraced as Biblical and necessary needs to be discussed.
I had a relative once who was given the Gospel, prayed the sinner’s prayer, told he was saved, welcome to the Kingdom etc. But in reality his wife had left him and he thought that if he came to Christ his wife would return. She didn’t and he left the faith, went back to his old way of life.
Fortunately several years later, he heard the Gospel again and this time believed. He is gone now, but his life was totally changed. It amazed me the change because he was quite the opposite before Christ.
“””Getting rid of superstitions”””
Of course we agree on this statement as it stands. However, the Sinner’s Prayer is not “superstititious” simply because some charismatic upstart says it is.
David Platt’s sermon, as with others I’ve heard him preach are really–in my opinion–elaborate straw-man arguments.
How can you call “giving an invitation” after a 30 minute presentation of the gospel that has extalled and expositied the way of salvation in elaborate detail– a “superstitious act?”
That demeans preaching in a way I’m not willing to do.
Getting in late on this conversation –
Thursday evening my wife and I called a woman who has been attending Cornerstone for several weeks. She is very sick with melanoma cancer. I shared God’s plan of salvation with her. I explained the fall, the cross and the resurrection. She had been in church much of her life, but said no one had ever explain the gospel to her. When she prayed there appeared to be genuine repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ. I led her in a sinners prayer. She was at church this morning and made a public profession of faith and we presented her as a candidate for baptism and church membership.
Now, having said that – ya’ll can do it any way you wanna, but I like the way I do it. And I genuinely feel the Lord blessed this call.
Was she saved? I think so! But I’m not in the sav’n business, God is. I’m just His messenger boy.
Rev Kev: I will give you my answer which I believe is based on scripture. The answer is time will tell. She was saved the moment she believed the Gospel that you gave her, not when she prayed the sinners prayer.
When I say time will tell, I mean her life will give the answer of genuine salvation to see.
Rev Kev,
you said: “Was she saved? I think so! But I’m not in the sav’n business, God is. I’m just His messenger boy.
Right on!
Im–with
anu–us
El–God
I’m not sure we can actually cause God to be not present. So this phrasing suggests intimacy. Discipleship that produces a public acknowledgement of intimacy–confess with your mouth and believe in your heart–is very specifically and undeniably required. Acceptance of a positional relationship–those verses mention “Jesus as Lord”–seem to be required. Acknowledgement of the resurrection appears to be a requirement at least in that passage.
Faith in Jesus is required. I don’t see how using the phrasing “accept Jesus” is particularly necessary, but I’m wracking my brains to see how a straw man based on rejecting that phrasing is in any way dangerous. I could imagine a requirement that the public profession would use that very passage as both prayer and public acknowledgement. If so, the only way I can imagine the word accept is with this phrasing:
Do you willingly confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and do you accept the truth that God has raised him from the dead?
What she prayed…
Dear God,
Having heard Your plan of Salvation explained to me,
I come to You asking for Your salvation.
I know that I am a sinner, and I am sorry for my sin.
I believe, because of my sin, I deserve to die.
I believe now, and thank you, that Jesus died in my place.
I believe Jesus rose from the dead so that I might have everlasting life.
Please forgive me of my sin and save me.
In Jesus Christ name I pray,
Amen!
This past Friday I attended the graduation and commissioning of my nephew at Ft Campbell KY, home of the 101st Airborne. He graduated Physician Assistants school and was commissioned as a First Lieutenant. Part of the ceremony included the recitation of a pledge to stand firm and defend the Constitution. There was also a recitation to provide medical care and compassion, etc..
Here’s the point – The US Army knows enough about human nature to require a recitation of a vow as a means of pointing a person in the right direction. The Jewish nation did the same in their worship and education. Numerous other examples from history and life can be included; what’s wrong with leading a person in the recitation of a “sinner’s prayer” after properly explaining the entire scope of the Gospel? To share the Gospel and then leave a person hanging is unthinkable to me.
” what’s wrong with leading a person in the recitation of a “sinner’s prayer” after properly explaining the entire scope of the Gospel?”
Nothing, although I don’t like to think of it as a vow.
As a brother… Kevin’s wife is going in for surgery at 9AM central this morning… and I would like to ask that we all lift her up in prayer for God’s special hand of protection over her and for him and his family as well.
Thank you all in advance!
><>”
So prayed.
Good questions, Dave!
When I have had the opportunity to counsel someone during that time when Jesus is calling someone and rescuing them from life to death, I typically do a couple of things. First, I share the gospel with them again. (God-Man-Christ-Response and Creation-Fall-Redemption-Glory). I usually share something similar to the gospel presentation on our churches website. http://fbjasper.org/#/the-gospel
Secondly, when we get to the part about response I will usually encourage them to read Psalm 51 or something similar and spend some time with the Lord (whether 10 minutes or 10 days) and then have them let me know what God is doing in their life. But then again, each person is unique and God deals with them uniquely. I don’t really think there is a canned formula that we can use. We just present the gospel and people respond in faith and repentance.
It’s nice to have something like a sinner’s prayer because it makes it tangible for us. It is a way for us to measure what God is doing. But I’m not convinced that it’s really the best approach. I’ve become increasingly convinced that someone being transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light (though swift, secure, and certain) is often quite the messy ordeal.
I have so much more that I’d like to say on this…but that may require another post all together.
All,
I wish I could take a mulligan on much of this discussion. I think we’ve tacked pretty far away from the original discussion and as such a lot of issues have been muddled that don’t have to be and shouldn’t be. I know that at best a lot of my own comments have not been as clear (or as charitable) as they should, so I apologize for my own approach in this discussion and while I don’t think I would change much of the substance of my comments, I would hope for better clarity from myself when these issues are addressed in the future.
Bottom line for me on this issue: yes, I want sinners to pray in faith and repentance, clinging to Christ as their only hope of salvation, seeking his grace to bring forgiveness and a changed life, receiving him as the only true grace and life and strength. And I hope that as we spread the gospel we do not simplify things so much that critical pieces of the gospel go unstated, creating too much of an opportunity for sinners to believe themselves saints without any true heart change.
Chris Roberts,
You stated, ” I want sinners to pray in faith and repentance, clinging to Christ as their only hope of salvation, seeking his grace to bring forgiveness and a changed life, receiving him as the only true grace and life and strength. And I hope that as we spread the gospel we do not simplify things so much that critical pieces of the gospel go unstated, creating too much of an opportunity for sinners to believe themselves saints without any true heart change.”
I will, without hesitation, stand with you in this statement just as I would with Rick Patrick in his statement.
Les, Mike Bergman, and any other person on this thread. There is but one gospel. The essence of the gospel rests in Christ and Christ alone. Yet, human beings are different as we all know. As we also know, no person can truly repent of being a depraved sinner and alien in their personhood to God unless the Holy Spirit reveals such to them.
Therefore, if we agree that people are different in personhood, yet the Spirit and the Spirit alone truly convicts a person of lostness, then surely we can possible agree that language relating to prayer may be of a secondary issue.
To ask God to be merciful to me a sinner is not unbiblical if such asking comes in response to the Holy Spirit of God revealing to me that I am truly a depraved sinner before a just and righteous God. As a sinner the only hope I have of being at peace with the One and Only sin hating God, Creator of all existence, is to trust completely in the atoning work of His Son as revealed in Scripture. Only a Holy Spirit convicted sinner can ever place such trust in the Son of God.
Thus, I conclude that asking God in prayer to forgive me of my life of sin and rejection toward Him and asking Him to give me saving grace supplied by His Son by the bloody crucifixion and glorious resurrection is not wrong and is never dangerous. In fact, to do anything else and call it experiencing the New Birth is most certainly dangerous.
It is Christ and Christ alone. Any other message or call to faith is not the gospel.
CB,
I can’t disagree with you brother. I think we are on the same page. I think a sinner calling out to God is both biblical and maybe most times needful. There can be exceptions of course.
So, in my summary, a sinner praying at the conclusion of a gospel message is not wrong. Yet, I think a feeling of necessity of that happening each time is wrong too. As I said earlier, I like to really send people to a time of re-thinking what was said, re-reading what I go over with them (scriptures) and basically go get “shut up” with God. Then revisit.
I really like the way John Benton says in his little helpful booklet “Coming to Faith in Christ” printed by Banner of Truth (a great organization BTW). He concludes, well near the end of the booklet,
“Can anyone else speak to God for me?
Other people can pray for you, but no one else can make you a Christian. Becoming a Christian, being saved, is something between you and Jesus Christ. It has nothing directly to do with anyone else. Are you sorry for your sin and do you want to finish with it ruling your life? Do you want to be saved from the judgment to come? Do you want to know Christ as your Friend and Lord? Then God’s word to you is:
‘Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.'[44]
You should find a place where you can be alone, and there seek God in prayer.
What shall I say when I pray?
God is not interested in fine words or speeches. But he will listen to anyone who is sincerely wanting to speak to him, whatever words are used. As you pray you should:
Confess your sins to God.
Confess that these sins are evil in God’s sight and you deserve to be sent to hell for them.
Tell God that you have no power to save yourself.
Ask the Lord Jesus to help you repent and believe. Ask him to save you.
Tell Jesus that you want him as the Lord of your life.
Then trust God to hear and answer your prayers because of Jesus Christ, according to his promises in the Bible.
‘Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.'[45]
Jesus spoke of a man praying for forgiveness of sin:
‘the tax-collector standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house right with God.'[46]”
Apologies for the length of this response. The full contents of his booklet may be found here http://www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/Salvation/comingtofaith.html
Les
Les,
How could any true, God called preacher of the gospel disagree with what you have stated here?
“God is not interested in fine words or speeches. But he will listen to anyone who is sincerely wanting to speak to him, whatever words are used. As you pray you should:
Confess your sins to God.
Confess that these sins are evil in God’s sight and you deserve to be sent to hell for them.
Tell God that you have no power to save yourself.
Ask the Lord Jesus to help you repent and believe. Ask him to save you.
Tell Jesus that you want him as the Lord of your life.
Then trust God to hear and answer your prayers because of Jesus Christ, according to his promises in the Bible.
‘Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’[45]”
Les, some people may call such “the sinner’s prayer” and mean the exact same thing you do here.
Yet, if any man states this prayer, in and of itself, gives eternal life to any person, that man is in grave error and has lessened the importance of the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of sinners by giving them, as we once called it, “cheap grace” or “easy believism.”
Would you agree?
CB,
“Yet, if any man states this prayer, in and of itself, gives eternal life to any person, that man is in grave error and has lessened the importance of the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of sinners by giving them, as we once called it, “cheap grace” or “easy believism.”
Would you agree?”
I agree. And in a true sense it is a sinner’s prayer. It is a guided prayer if you will.
And back to the title of this post, “The Ask Jesus Into You Heart Debate.” This guided prayer is not really the same thing as “ask Jesus into your heart.” This suggested prayer (content and method) is rich biblically which is why I like it. But as you say, even this if it is told to someone that if you say this this way then you are saved gives eternal life, no. These words don’t give eternal life. God gives eternal life.
I think we are agreeing, right?
OK Les,
I know for sure that I agree with you here.
It is also “my opinion” that Rick Patrick, Frank L, and Steve Gaines would agree with you also. Of course, I cannot speak with full knowledge for them.
In addition, remember it was Dave Miller who titled this post and not Steve Gaines or Rick Patrick or cb. Also remember the debate on this thread was not about Dave Miller’s title of the post. It was about the content of Steve Gaines sermon compared to David Platt’s sermon.
The title of Dave Miller’s post may imply one thing, yet Steve Gaines’ sermon did not give any credibility to the idea that “just asking Jesus into your heart” constitutes being born again of the Spirit of God.
CB
Here is the crux of the issue as I see it; you wrote… “Thus, I conclude that asking God in prayer to forgive me of my life of sin and rejection toward Him and asking Him to give me saving grace supplied by His Son by the bloody crucifixion and glorious resurrection is not wrong and is never dangerous. In fact, to do anything else and call it experiencing the New Birth is most certainly dangerous.”
Here is my question. Do you ask for forgiveness and for God to GIVE YOU SAVING GRACE or do you ask because God has ALREADY given you saving grace?
This is what I believe is at the heart of this whole issue in the first place. This is what I indicated in Chris’ comments in #64 and #53 above as well as Les’ in those areas as well. Chris fell back on the BF&M instead of speaking to his own statement.
The real problem with the “sinner’s prayer” is calvinists believe God does the saving and the sinner’s response is the result of what God has already done… so a sinner’s prayer cannot accomplish anything and that is the reason the church is in the mess that it is in today.
><>”
Bob Hadley,
I believe a person repents of sin and believes on Christ to save his wretched soul because the Holy Spirit of God has made him aware of the undeniable fact that he is a sinner before a just and righteous God.
Bob, I seek to be honest and open as far as possible with other people. I did take some of the fellows on this thread to task for their positions on the Steve Gaines video. Bob, I also believe that you make some comments simply because you just plain don’t care too awfully much for Calvinists.
Bob, I am not an Arminian and I really do not like the term “non-Calvinist.” I do not think it does justice in identifying Bible believing, born-again Christians who are baptistic in their theology.
I am also not going to tell a person not to pray to receive Christ if he has an understanding of the biblical gospel and wants to ask Christ to save his wretched soul. Actually, I would encourage him to do so if he realizes he is a sinner before a just and righteous God, knowing he must repent and believe the biblical gospel if he is going to escape the wrath of God that surely awaits every person who is not born from above by the grace of God in Christ Jesus.
In addition, I have never in my life told a man, woman, boy or girl that “all they have to do is pray a prayer” to be saved.
CB
Thanks for the answer and let me clear up something first… I have a disdain for calvinism, not calvinists. My comments with calvinists are always in reference to calvinism… I get accused of knowing what “calvinists think better than they do” but that is an exaggerated accusation. I pay attention to what people say and to the concepts calvinism posits… there are times when what people say does not correspond to what the system they tout proposes and so there are times when I do question what people say to point out my interpretation as to how their statements line up with their theology. I am certainly in the minority in this room so from time to time my frustration may crop up but it is unintentional… most of the time!
As for my question to you earlier, I had no idea how you would answer that question nor was I challenging anything you had said earlier. I have read your comments and with the exception of you being an Alabama fan… I have a great deal of respect for your positions and opinions as they have been expressed.
I am confident that you understand the issues that are at stake with respect to calvinism in the SBC… how we view that is our own perspective but for me the issue of where and how regeneration are related to the salvific process are vitally important, especially where the theological foundations fall with respect to the entities of the convention. These positions do matter to me just as I understand they matter to most who comment here and in other places.
I believe that is the reason we engage in blogs in the first place. I have no real allusions of converting anyone to my position; but when someone comes here and begins reading about various issues, they may read my post or yours or Dave’s or whoever… and think, that makes sense to me and the discussion helps THEM find their place. I have had a number of folks contact me because of my blogging, which personally I do not care for. I have plenty to be doing but I believe this is important enough to be engaged and that is the only reason I continue to participate in this process.
Thank you for your response and may God bless us all as we all seek to serve Him to the best of our ability as the Scriptures lead us to do!
><>”
Bob Hadley,
That was a fair response and I appreciate it. And yes, you do seem to be in the minority here quite often. And sometimes, even when you have made no statement that should draw fire, you get a full battery. So do a few other guys.
Yet, sometimes, I think you hunt up a hot pit and throw your dog right in it also. And I would be a hypocrite to say I don’t grin when I see you do it and sometimes I place a bet on your dog.
Bill&CB: The better wording would be regeneration comes before faith, repentance, etc. And the regeneration or waking up, coming alive,by the Holy Spirit causes us to see Christ for who he really is. But as far as repentance, true repentance sometimes, maybe most times does not come right away. It comes in stages or later on after salvation. Does that mean the person is not really saved? No. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Acts 16:31.
Paul was not truly aware of the gravity of his sins till after his conversion. It is one reason when Christ appeared to him he sent him to be taught.
As has already been mentioned, the two are so closely together in occurrence as to be seen outwardly as one event.
I do believe the repentance and faith is due to God’s giving of saving grace. Repentance and faith is a result of salvation and not the cause of salvation.
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 CORINTHIANS 2:14
“I do believe the repentance and faith is due to God’s giving of saving grace. Repentance and faith is a result of salvation and not the cause of salvation.”
Statements like this have caused untold problems in the community of faith. It is a statement made from an honest desire to maintain adherence to a specific soteriological dogma, yet it betrays a lacking of understanding of the soteriological dogma of which it was made in order to defend. Statements like this also illustrate a lacking of understanding of the doctrine of soteriology in general.
Regeneration and salvation are not synonymous. For Calvinists, it is the enabler of salvation, for non-Calvinists, it is the result of salvation. But it isn’t salvation, although it is inextricably linked to it (as is grace, repentance, and confession). Salvation is by grace through faith. Paul did not tell the Phillipian jailer to believe as proof of his salvation, he told him to believe to be saved.
CB: You are going to have to do better than that as showing in scripture where you think I am wrong. It’s more of an insult which I ignore than a Biblical refute. I gave one passage of many that I see the view I hold in.
Debbie and CB,
I’ve got a cold and have had a tough week thus far so I’d don’t have much fight in me.
But, could we be doing “chicken and egg” thing here. In the mind of God–at least His Sovereign foreknowledge–salvation was complete before it started, would you both not agree?
To neatly carve up “salvation” into beginning, middle and end creates a problem quantum scientists have identified: the very observation of a thing changes it.
I don’t think we can talk about salvation in such neat and tidy terms. Dissection is a very helpful tool, but in the end all you are left with is a stack of dead parts.
Debbie,
No insult intended, just sharing the truth as I understand it. BTW, I am not so sure that you can draw the conclusion you desire from 1 Corinthians 2:14. Nonetheless, give the following statement a lick and a promise and think about it for a moment.
It is true that God has decreed to personally save sinners. Thus God and God alone saves sinners. Yet, in God’s decree to save sinners, He has mandated that a sinner repent and believe the biblical gospel of God the Son to be saved. Of course, the Holy Spirit convicts and convinces a sinner that he is a sinner before a just and righteous God. Only the Holy Spirit can open the mind of a person/sinner to the fact that he/she is hopelessly lost, and alien to Holy God in all he/she thinks, does, or says.
The Holy Spirit’s personal work in the lives of sinners is causative of their repentance and faith in the atoning work of Christ in His bloody crucifixion and His glorious resurrection. It is by Triune decree that repentance and faith are necessary for a person to be saved and the Triune God is causative for repentance and faith in the lives of sinners who become the children of God by grace through faith and that not of themselves.
Frank,
No chickens. No eggs. Just sinners and God’s grace is all Debbie and I are speaking of at the moment. But I would cook you up some chicken soup for your cold if you were here. I do make a fair chicken soup even if I do say so myself.
CB,
What do you think about the “dissection” metaphor? Do you think that we can really probe so deeply and neatly into the process of salvation as to distill it down to a few aphorism or propositions?
By the way . . . I do not mean to suggest we should not probe the depths of doctrine. We should treat it like a cave diver treats a deep, mysterious cavern–with great respect and humility.
I think too many preachers discuss theology to come to some propositional certainty, instead of feeling one has experienced the sharing of a great mystery.
Please do not read that as “emergent” in any way.
Frank,
I am not trying to dissect anything here. I am simply stating that a person must repent to be saved. Repentance is necessary for salvation to occur. Yet, it is evident that God is completely causative in any person’s salvation.
Frank, surely you agree that repentance is necessary for salvation, do you not? If you do not, then let me say here and now that I have misread you for the last few years.
How can any man be saved unless he is obedient to Christ Himself and repents of sin against a just and righteous God? How can any man be saved if he is not convicted by the Spirit of God that he is a sinner?
CB,
Certainly agree with you on repentence.
What I guess I’m less dogmatic about is the “order of salvation” as to pinpointing “who, what, where, how, and exactly when” a person becomes saved.
I believe there is a process, that salvation includes an event, but that it is from our perspective shrouded in great mystery.
That’s why I don’t get hung up on exact formulas and such in regard to the “prayer” a person prays. In fact, I once led a man to the Lord in his hospital bed as he lay dying of cancer. He wrote his faith responses on a pad because cancer had left him mute.
I’m sure I might have even misspelled some of the words in the Sinner’s Prayer. I believe God has “spell check” so I’m confident the man’s repentence in faith (not the pad and pencil) brought him to salvation.
The whole “sovereignty versus free choice” debate, and the “dissection” of invitational language kind of leaves me dry in the mouth.
I guess I’m more of a “Larry the Cable Guy” when it comes to evangelism: “Git ‘er done!”
Frank,
Did you not read what precipitated my comment about repentance? Or is it of late that you just go to my comments and begin to refute them?
I did not make any argument about a “formula.” I responded to Debbie about the necessity of repentance in salvation.
CB,
No need to get insulting and condescending.
I had to reread the comments along with your responses to me to get your perspective.
I was talking about the “exchange in general” for the most part, not that one specific issue.
Sorry to have offended you. I concede and call it quits.
Right CB, I agree with your comment, which is why I believe repentance is the affect of salvation not the cause.
Debbie,
If you agree with that comment do you also agree that it is impossible for a person to be saved without repentance and faith in the biblical gospel? In other words, do you agree that a person must literally repent of sin and believe the biblical gospel in order to be saved?
Debbie: I’m not quite sure how you can agree with CB when he is saying the opposite of what you are claiming. You are saying a person is saved before they believe in Christ. There are no scriptures for that. If that’s what Calvinists believe then I didn’t get the memo.
It doesn’t matter if a person is elect from before the foundation of the world. Their salvation may be predestined from all eternity. But if they have not trusted Christ as savior (even though they will in the future) then they are not saved.
I think terminology clarification would be helpful. As someone has already pointed out, “salvation” is an all encompassing word.
Debbie said, “Repentance and faith is a result of salvation and not the cause of salvation.”
I would state it this way, “Repentance and faith is a result of regeneration and not the cause of regeneration.”
Conversion (repentance and faith) necessarily follows regeneration.
Just a couple cents. .
You are saying a person is saved before they believe in Christ. There are no scriptures for that. If that’s what Calvinists believe then I didn’t get the memo.
Bill Mac
Debbie maintains that position because she believes that someone’s “nicey-ness” proves that they are saved. Someone, in her mind, can be living a openly homosexual lifestyle or a muslim who actively worships Allah and practices islam and be saved but just not know it yet.
Les,
This thread is long. Nonetheless, in an effort to determine “if we are anywhere near to being on the same page” in this very serious matter, please read the following statement I made to Debbie.
“It is true that God has decreed to personally save sinners. Thus God and God alone saves sinners. Yet, in God’s decree to save sinners, He has mandated that a sinner repent and believe the biblical gospel of God the Son to be saved. Of course, the Holy Spirit convicts and convinces a sinner that he is a sinner before a just and righteous God. Only the Holy Spirit can open the mind of a person/sinner to the fact that he/she is hopelessly lost, and alien to Holy God in all he/she thinks, does, or says.
The Holy Spirit’s personal work in the lives of sinners is causative of their repentance and faith in the atoning work of Christ in His bloody crucifixion and His glorious resurrection. It is by Triune decree that repentance and faith are necessary for a person to be saved and the Triune God is causative for repentance and faith in the lives of sinners who become the children of God by grace through faith and that not of themselves.”
If you have read that statement Les and agree with it, do you also agree that a person must repent and believe the biblical gospel to be saved?
CB,
I think that is a good statement. I’m not really comfortable with the word “causative.” But if you mean what I think you mean, then yes I am in agreement.
“It is by Triune decree that repentance and faith are necessary for a person to be saved and the Triune God is causative for repentance and faith in the lives of sinners…”
I agree with this, except the causative word. I rather look at faith and repentance as gifts from God (as I’m sure you do too) and see the word causative as almost sounding like God does it for us. I don’t think that’s what you mean, but again the idea makes me less comfortable with that word.
To some people’s surprise, I as a Calvinist do not want to diminish the biblical idea of the human will. Sinners do actually do the repenting and believing in exercising their new nature wills in the salvation process.
Also, I would add that I believe that “normally” repentance and faith are necessary. I hold that infants dying in infancy and those severely mentally handicapped are regenerated and go to be with Jesus at death without the necessity of an outward call or outward response of repentance and faith. Some Reformed think that R & F are still necessary and that God causes that for those who cannot so respond. But that topic is yet another can of worms.
Les,
As information and since you brought it to the table (glad you did), I am not in reference to infants nor those who were born with mental retardation.
I am speaking of guys like you and guys like me–your everyday, run-of-the-mill, depraved, godless sinner who is on his way to hell unless he repents and believes the biblical gospel.
Also, I do believe that salvation is by Christ and Christ alone and that we, who are saved, are saved by grace through faith; and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. Yet, in God’s decree to save sinners, He has mandated that a sinner recognize himself a sinner (experience brokenness that he has sinned against a just and righteous God) , repent and believe the biblical gospel. Salvation is a gift from God, given to undeserving, hopeless sinners such as we are.
In addition, I noticed that you read Peter Lumpkins’ post on this subject and commented in the thread. I believe that particular post was one of Pete’s best. I would encourage every person on this thread to read it.—–That includes Dave Miller.
This issue is perpetually debated because both Calvinists and the rest of us recognize principles here that cannot be compromised. For Calvinists, it is the principle that God is ultimately responsible for bringing a man to faith and salvation. For the rest of us, it is the principle that God requires and savingly responds to the faith of the sinner, who remains utterly lost until he surrenders in genuine, repentant faith.
Surprisingly, there IS room for agreement here.
Both sides need to recognize that there are TWO profound changes that happen to a man as he is saved. FIRST:the man is changed from a man who hates God to a man who is ready to repent and turn to God. This is what the Calvinists focus on. How profound it is that a man who shakes his fist at God becomes a man on his knees at the altar! SECOND: God responds to the man who turns from his sin and comes to Him by justifying him, indwelling him with the Holy Spirit and bringing life back to his spirit. This is what the rest of us focus on — the “new creation,” being “born again” and restored to communion with God.
Non-Calvinists mostly fail to recognize the first change for what it is — a profound change — and emphasize only the second change. In this second change, God does respond to the man’s decision to come to Him in faith. However, the second change cannot happen without the first change; and the first change only happens if God has in His grace intervenes in such a way as to bring about that change.
Calvinists mostly fail to recognize that the two changes are distinct, and reserve only justification for God’s response to the sinner’s faith. But justification is grounded on the reality of spiritual union with the indwelling Christ. Justification provides the initial legal judgment of our salvation, but the union with Christ provides the substance and reality of our salvation — the ground and basis for our justification. While it is plausible that God would have reason to justify prior to union, there is no plausible reason to withhold justification once the believer is united with Christ.
It comes down to the question of how far God must go to effect that first change (from rebellion to repentance). Calvinists think that God, uninvited, must indwell the man so that He can change the man from within, because nothing short of an entirely new nature will suffice. The rest of us think that God works on him from without, communicating with him (drawing him) without indwelling him, and that a new nature is not needed in order to bring the sinner to his knees. Repentant belief is not the righteous act of a righteous nature, pleading its own merit; rather, repentant belief is the desperate act of the convicted, sinful nature, with no merit but that of Christ.
I submit that rejecting God is not intrinsic to man’s nature. Men are conceived with a nature, but men are not conceived rejecting God. Infants don’t shake their fists at God. Man’s nature is intrinsically self-centered, selfish, self-absorbed, self-loving; and this inevitably leads to rejecting God and sinning. However, rejecting God and sinning are secondary results, and not necessary to the nature itself. God does not need to change the sinner’s nature — regenerate him — in order to get him to embrace Christ. Rather, God enlightens the man to the fact that it is ultimately in the man’s greatest self-interest to forsake himself and embrace God. “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.”(Mark 8:35). This is the reason that faith always has a promise from God. Without the promise, there would be nothing to appeal to the sinner’s self-interest and thus attract him to embrace God in faith. At conversion, the sinner comes according to God’s will, but also according to his own greatest self-interest, so that his interests and God’s are aligned and in agreement. Therefore, it is possible for God to bring a sinner to genuine faith without changing the sinner’s nature prior to that faith.
The second change cannot happen without the first change; and the first change only happens if God has in His grace “pursued” the man, through the convictions, revelations, and persuasions of the Holy Spirit (as well as the orchestration of necessary circumstances and events in life). The first change is man’s response to God, and makes the second change — which is God’s response to man — to be ultimately creditable only to God.
My reply is further up. My wording previously could have been much better.
Joe: I believe that Jesus Christ and the belief in him is the only way to heaven. I just don’t believe you have to be Southern Baptist to do it. One can be Roman Catholic.
“Niceyness” is the end result of salvation and sanctification not the cause. But a deep love for Christ, God the Father, the Holy Spirit and for other people are a sign of salvation. Hatred for sin is another sign. Romans 7:22-24, 1 John 3:14, 1 Corinthians 16:22.
I think the most important message in the Gospel is Christ not self improvement. Christ does all through us. We can try and try and still not meet a Holy God’s standards. But Christ did. We can’t change ourselves, but Christ can. That is the message.Christ.
I think what bothers me more than the subject of the “sinner’s prayer” or “Asking Jesus into your heart” is the self improvement course and list of dos and don’ts that come after salvation occurs. Most will give the message of Christ dying, we can do nothing etc. then when the person embraces this and is saved, the list comes out. The self improvement courses begin. The Gospel then kind of flies out the window while the message of the law begins.
No Debbie, you think “nicey-ness” is proof that someone is already saved even if they don’t know it yet. For instance, mulims that follow islam will go to heaven because their “nicey-ness” proves that God has already saved them through faith in Jesus Christ even if they’re not conscious of that faith, according to you.
The story of my conversion is particularly funny given this article and ensuing comments.
Short version:
God saved me through a heated argument over this very topic between an Arminian and a Calvinist of all people.
Longer version:
I was a non-Christian though I had been going to church for the first 27 years of my life. One day, a friend of mine at work (who happened to be an anti-Calvinist – a “Calvinism is a lie from the pit of hell” kind of anti-Calvinist – Christian – I’ll call him “A”) approached another friend of mine (who happened to be a Calvinist Christian – I’ll call him “C”) and accused him of not being saved. This was all very strange sounding to me to say the least. To my eyes, and the eyes of other Christians I knew, C was a very strong Christian man who obviously loved Jesus and sought to put Him first in everything he did. I didn’t see A’s problem which was that in talking with C, A got the idea that C had never prayed a “sinner’s prayer”. C’s point was that he’d been a Christian for so long that he couldn’t remember ever saying “the prayer”, in fact, C couldn’t remember ever not being a Christian (evidently, he was saved at a very young age.) A had great concern for C because C couldn’t remember “making a decision.”
God has an interesting way of saving people. The gospel was preached to me peripherally through two Christians arguing over whether or not a sinner’s prayer is a necessary. C even said to A – “If it will make you feel better, I’ll pray a sinner’s prayer right now…”
So, as far as anecdotes go, there was one Arminian who accused a Calvinist of not being a Christian not because he didn’t believe the gospel, but because he never prayed a sinner’s prayer.
Flash forward a few years to an Evangelical Puppet Show we had in out front yard that was put on by a local church. It was really awesome until the very end. The “sinner’s prayer” in that instance completely ruined a great gospel presentation. After a very clear and well done gospel presentation, they asked if any of the children wanted to come up and “ask Jesus into their hearts”. When nobody responded, they offered them a bag of candy to do it. Guess how many went up then? Oh yeah, and guess how many “welcome to the family – you are a Christian now!” cards they handed out? Yup – the same.
I’m not really trying to make a point other than that we all screw up the Gospel presentation, and the invitation. Fortunately, God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick, but that doesn’t give us permission to go around using crooked sticks! God saves people even through anemic Gospel presentations. He saves people through incorrect Gospel presentations. He saves people through arguments about the Gospel.
He saves people in spite of our best/worst/non efforts.
“Fortunately, God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick, but that doesn’t give us permission to go around using crooked sticks! God saves people even through anemic Gospel presentations.”
Amen! Great word and thanks for sharing your story.
“He saves people through incorrect Gospel presentations. He saves people through arguments about the Gospel.”
Can never have too wide of a net. There are Heaven-bound saved brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Maybe even some in Liberal Protestant churches, and even some in Pentecostal Word-Faith Prosperity Gospel churches. Maybe even in some Oneness Pentecostal churches.
But I don’t know about folks in the Mormon church or Jehovah Witnesses church. They marred up the Gospel so bad with such a bad Christology that it seems like they’re unregenerate.
Yes those “churches” have done that. But God examines the heart and the Father may credit righteousness to whomever he feels believes in the Son. Even if what they actually have been taught is garbage. Which gives me hope even when I get my theological priorities out of whack.
The night I was converted, Dec. 7, 1957, I saw Jesus standing before me. Perhaps 15 feet in front of me, in the midst of the pews of the Lindell Blvd. Bible Church in St. Louis, Where a Youth For Christ Service was being held. He was looking at me, had his hand raised like He was knocking. I had been thinking up to that point that I would like to go forward and then I had thought, “Why would I want to do this? I don’t believe any of it is true.” (I was a professing, practicing atheist). At that moment I saw Jesus. then i lost all my desire to go forward. All I wanted was to get out of that place. And I was resolved to tell no one as it was too embarrassing. After all, when you have said there is no God, and He shows up, knocking at your door, it is rather embarrassing. I left that place after the service, resolved to tell no one. Before I got home (in fact, about two blocks from the house), I had a change of mind. I decided to tell my mother. Setting at her knees that night, I told her with tears what had happened. She read me a few verses from the Bible. Then she said, “I don’t know what else to tell you. You just ask the Lord to forgive you of your sins.” When I prayed, saying, “Lord forgive me of my sins,” and made some other remarks that I do not remember, a great burden was lifted off of my heart and mind that I did not know I had until that moment. Then I cried tears of joy. It would take a few years down the road to understand what had happened. Jesus appeared just like it says in Rev. 3:20, and I ran the other way like it suggested the person in the house would do in Rev.3:17 (a naked person is too embarrassed to open the door) and a wretched and miserable person is helpless, unable to open the door (James Petigru Boyce described the door as stuck fast to the point that no human hand could open it). It took Acts 16:14 where the Lord showed me that He opened my heart just like He did Lydia’s heart. It was the matter of cause and effect. We love Him, because He first loved us. Spurgeon did not believe Rev.3:20 could be used as an evangelistic text, but God did and does. Two Puritans had sermons on that text, John Flavel had a whole volume devoted to Rev.3:20, a volume of 11 sermons. David Clarkson had one sermon on Rev.3:20 in 80 pages of close set type. Basil Manly, Sr., had two sermons on Rev.3:20, and Boyce had one sermon on the text (which I would surely like to see). It took years to come to appreciate the theology of Sovereign Grace which I had heard preached as a child and which I my ordained pastor, Dr. Ernest R. Campbell believed and preached. The most difficult problem is believing the simple words. For example, CAN in Jn.6:44,65 clearly demonstrates and proves that not only is man suffering from total depravity, but that he suffers from total inability. Jesus said, NO MAN HAS THE POWER, THE ABILITY, TO COME TO ME. It is only when the Father draws him, when the Father gives him the desire to respond and the ability to respond, that one then responds. It is true whether a person is aware of it or not, so long as they come to Christ, receive Christ, believe Christ. the regeneration, conception, if you plese, undoubtedly takes place in order to have a the life, the ability to respond. And the preaching of the word (Jas.1:18 draws forth the new born believer in Christ. He or she responds by believing and submitting to the Lord Jesus Christ. God can and does use very faulty persons with very limited understanding to win others to Christ. But they also can mislead due to their lack of understanding of the effects of the Fall, of original sin.
the paradoxical nature of Sovereign Grace theology is designed to enlarge our minds and hearts, to deepen and strengthen us, to enflame and inspire us to give our all to the Lord Jesus Christ and for the Lord jesus Christ. It is God’s use of opposites, of His calling for the impossible (Mk.10), that is so productive of freedom and liberty, spiritually and also politically and every otherwise.
James,
Do you really believe you literally saw God the Son standing 15 feet from you in 1957?
Well, CB, you certainly know spot a red herring.
Tim
CB,
Are you suggesting that “could” not happen?
Frank,
I have not suggested anything. I did most certainly ask a question.
By your question to me, are you “suggesting” that it did happen?
No. I’m suggesting it “could” have happened.
What was the foundation for your question? Do you think it “could” have happened?
You were quick–and correct–to point out that my question had a motivation. Questions can betray a motive? I’ve ponied up to my motivation. What say ye, my brother?
Frank,
I think the question could have more than one answer from James’ perspective. My position hinges entirely on his answer.
Whoa… this dialogue is making me dizzy!
><>”
Bob,
All the good rides make one a little dizzy!
Bottom line: Bob and Rick, when someone asks you, what must I do to be saved, what do you tell them?
Second question: Let’s say that I tell them:
1. Repent of your sins.
2. Believe in Christ, his death, burial and resurrection on our behalf.
3. Confess Christ as Lord.
Is there any flaw in what I have told them?
Well, no, not really, but how do you want them to express that repentance, that belief and that confession? Should they just tell you? Should they just tell others? Or might it not make sense for them to express these things in prayer before God, humbly repenting, believing and confessing that Jesus is Lord before God’s throne of grace?
Is there any flaw in asking them to do that? Or is it dangerous and damning to do so?
I don’t think there is any problem at all with them doing it in a prayer.
What about my first question?
When someone asks me how to be saved, I simply explain the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and how He died for their sins. I ask them if they are ready to repent of their sins, trust in Jesus as their Savior and confess Him as Lord. Although it may mark me as “old school,” I usually share the verses of the Roman Road. If they express a willingness to affirm the above, I lead them in a prayer expressing such faith to the Lord. Then I talk a little about baptism and church membership. I thought this was pretty much the way everybody did it.
Bingo. Except for a few on here, I don’t think there are many who would object to that method.
CB: Yes, I think it was a vision of Jesus standing before me. But it could have been a hallucination. How does one tell? However, I can tell you this: it surely led to the greatest change in my life. Within three hours of that sight, I became a believer in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, as my Lord and Savior. The experiences I have had since then tend to confirm that experience.
James,
In all honesty, I think I would have to believe it a hallucination. Nonetheless, I do not doubt your conversion one iota.
CB,
I thought that would be your view. Many Southern Baptists are uncomfortable with “dreams and visions,” or miracles in general.
Even though I came from an American Baptist background (even more cessationist) I did have a vision. I have seen miracles take place through prayer.
In fact, I have one in my church now that was given up for dead, nothing more the doctors could do, prepare for the funeral. That was forty years ago. He preaches for me regularly.
Also, people in Muslim countries are regularly giving testimony of Jesus appearing to them.
Of course, there are numerous testations of appearances by Jesus in the Old Testament. I am not familiar with any N.T. verse that says in the latter days “”young men will [NOT] see visions, and your old men will [NOT] dream dreams” (Acts 2:17).
I have an open mind in regard to what God might choose to do.
Frank,
Maybe in your predetermination of what my “view” would be, you superimposed your thoughts upon what I actually stated.
My question was; “Do you really believe you literally saw God the Son standing 15 feet from you in 1957?”
Notice, if you will Frank, I asked not one word about “dreams” or “visions.”
And not all Southern Baptists are “uncomfortable” with such. Also Frank, you are not alone in knowing about such stories from Muslims and others.
As to miracles? Well Frank, it is like that great theologian from Austin, TX wrote:
“Miracles occur in the strangest of places,
Imagine meeting you here,
So pull up a chair and sit down beside me,
And….”
________Willie Nelson_________________
Interesting indeed, a group of bapticostals here? I’ll throw my testimony in here……the third person of the Godhead appeared to me the second saturday night of December 1978, in an apartment in Midland, Texas no less. And I had convinced myself that I was an atheist….so it was quite a surprise. Blew my atheist theory all to pieces. Then the 2nd Sunday night in November 1998, St Francis cardiac intensive care unit, Tulsa, Oklahoma I got a visit from the 2nd person of the Godhead…..yep, Jesus himself accompanied by 2 unidentified individuals I presumed and still do to have been angelic beings. It wasn’t during visiting hours either. Had a good chat too. Then went home 2 days later after “medical experts” told me I would be there for a month if I even survived. Hallucinations? Nope, had those in wild and crazy days. Visitations? Without a single doubt whatsoever.
Can’t say I am enthusiastic about the term, Bapticostals (or however you spell it). I preached back in Jan. in a church where one had been pastor that favored them folks. Both he and they were not very thoughtful or inspiring. I guess like our neighbors in Arkansas that were Assembly of God folks, there were some good people among them. However, they sure made a mess.
Dr. J:
If you go to a modern cemetery you will notice a tidy landscape, everyone in rows, and not much “mess.”
Isn’t it just a bit troubling that that could also describe many churches?
An avowed Bapticostal. Actually, few people know that as a Baptist sailor in the Navy I actually surrendered to preach in an Assembly of God church.
Nobody has ever asked, and I’ve never been compelled to offer that information!
Dear Frank: I remember Sister Mabel who had them rolling in the aisles and then ran off with one of her deacons who had four sons…She aroused my ire for the sake of the four sons who lost a daddy. That was in childhood. Then in life and ministry, everywhere I went, the charismatics did some off the walls things, in local churches and even on tv. I will not trouble to list them. You probably know them better than I do. I still allow that God might have some among them, cause He don’t like for us to put limits on Him. However, He does seem to prefer that we show some adherence to His revealed truths. And believe me, the costals of whatever persuasion can have no conception of the power of God in a Great Awakening for which I have been praying it will be 39 years this Fall.
Fifty years ago today, I was ordained to the ministry.
CB,
“””And not all Southern Baptists are “uncomfortable” with such”””
Are you just messing with me? I very clearly did NOT say “all” Southern Baptists. Did you try a little “sleight of hand” with my post?
The only “statistic” I’ve seen indicates that somewhere around 50% (1 out of 2) SBC pastors would classify themselves as “non-cessasionists.” So, the other 50% would clearly support my proposition of “many” SBC pastors who have trouble with visions and dreams and other such “charismatic” type events.
But, many is certainly not “all” and I acknowledge that.
Frank,
You did use the word “many.” I responded with the words “Not all” meaning there “are some who”……” Nonetheless, I will rephrase my comment.
Frank,
I realize that many Southern Baptists are uncomfortable with……, but some are not uncomfortable with…..”
I hope that clears up the problem.
BTW, no matter what you believe about the “sign gifts” or spiritual gifts in general, the physical return of Christ for a private visitation to any living person before His appearing in the Second Advent is very unlikely and may well be argued as not biblical.
Do people have dreams, hallucinations, and visions even today? I would think so. Actually, I believe they do. But a dream, vision, or hallucination is a far cry from an actual and literal appearance of Christ on earth to any person in His resurrected body.
Frank: Very interesting about vision. Send an email to me at jimwillingham@att.net.
CB: You could, of course be right. However, it sure had far reaching effects on my life, effects that have lasted for 54 years, 5 mos., and 7 days. Also, this coming Sunday, May 20, I will have been an ordained Southern Baptist minister for 50 years. And I have had other experiences of the presence of Jesus. Perhaps the greatest (to my mind, so far), was in the Fall of ’72, when I awakened in our seminary apartment…and our Lord was present. He was not visible, and don’t asked me how I knew. I am unable to say. He was there, invisible, and more real than if He had stood before me in the flesh. I cried tears of joy for a solid half hour, from the bedroom to the bathroom to the kitchen table. All while getting ready to go to class. My wife was witness to that visitation.
James,
I have no doubt your experience “had far reaching effects” on your life. Having read your comments for these past years now, I would not have one doubt of your commitment and faithfulness to our Lord Jesus.
Also, your experience in the Fall of ’72 makes perfect sense to me.
CB: Thanks. I look forward to Sunday the 20th of May for these 50 years. Pray also for a message that I am thinking about and working on, The Ethiopian Proof. Zeph.2:12; Ps.68:31b. By the way, I did not have any great experience in my call to the minsitry, but I had had some great confirmations during my ministry. One, was the lady at the last church I served as pastor. About a year after I came to the church, she said, “I want to tell you why I voted for you.” Turns out that she would have ordinarily voted against me, because I had a second marriage. However, the Lord showed me to her in a dream. In the dream, I had come out of the door where the pastor normally comes to come up to the pulpit, and I was standing there with my head bowed in prayer. The Lord said, “He’s the Man.” She said, when I came, she recognized me as the man in the dream —-from my bald head. She said, “I didn’t dare vote against you.” As long as that woman and her husband lived, my job was secure. After they both died, my goose was cooked and I was fired. Another item of confirmation came from our son. He said to me in the Summer of ’97 (he was then a student at SEBTS and went to Africa with his wife and they won souls (I think 41 or so))(this was after I had been fired), “If you had not been faithful, I would not be where I am today.” All I can say is, Thank God and praise His holy name.” There is more.
James,
Let me state something to you if I may?
I want you to know my question of you was in no way intended to offend your or attack you. I find you one of the most fascinating people in all of the Baptist blog world. I realize you have taken a few hits because your comments are usually long, but I want you to know that I read every word you put on these comment threads.
You are a man of a colorful history and vast experience. You are a deep well of knowledge and a vanishing breed of noble men of true grit and Christian character in a culture gone to hell in a wagon pulled by demonic horses. Honesty and openness seems as natural to you as coal dust on the brow of a Kentucky coal miner.
Guys like you make reading blogs a continued interest and gives me a longing to sit in some country store with you around an old, orange glowing, wood stove, drinking coffee, hot from the pot and eating fresh killed ham and red onion sandwiches made with home sliced, oven baked bread, listening to you expound on life, the nature of God, and mankind’s accountability to Him as the All-knowing Creator.
Thanks for always being kind and courteous even to ill-bred dogs of war such as me. I would ride the river with you any day.
Well, CB, bless your heart, brother. Being committed to the original theology and practices as I am has not always endeared me to the powers that be. On the contrary, it opened the door for all kinds of efforts to destroy my ministry. Like the deacon who came to me one day and said, “Preacher, that DOM said we ought to fire you, and I asked, ‘Why? He’s doing his job.” The rest of that story gets even more interesting. Perhaps someday around a cracker barrel, we can swap war stories, if you make that ham hickory smoked. Seriously, I tried to offer a presentation of Conferences on Great Awakenings, stressing the theology and practices that I had learned about in the First and Second Great Awakening studies and in a study of the launching of the Great Century of Missions. Had a printed flier, etc. Never even got a single nibble. Must lie way beyond, but I continue to pray. Usually about 40 minutes to an hour and sometimes an hour and a half. I have even mentioned your name in prayer as I do many of these folks on SBC Voices, both bloggers and respondents. It took years to get control of myself and my tendency to shoot from the hip. Such effort does not come cheap or easy. I would like to meet you sometime and hear the story of your life, ministry, growth, education, etc. If you want to develop a knack for dealing with frustrations, do two years of research in the Greek on I Cors.12:31b-14:1a, including I Cors.8:1, “love edifies.” It will be one of the must frustrating and rewarding experiences of your life. People do not know how restorative and refreshing it is to study a passage in depth and in detail until they are practically consumed with it…or rather it consumes them. But then, again, you might have some idea of it, too. After all, pastors have to prepare their messages, especially, if they want a pastorate that lasts anytime. I rather suspect that you have been learning the hard way from actual experience in the Lord’s vineyard. Hard knocks is a great teacher.
Every servant of God has that unmistakable impress and imprint upon him that indicates the presence of the Spirit of God, the gift of illumination. It is funny to think that I have attended 10 schools, colleges, and universities above the secondary level, earned 5 degrees, 18 hrs. on a Ph.D.,, have a bachelor’s degree with 155 semester hours in it (that’s one hour short of having enough for the Bachelor and a Masters). and more hours in my graduate work than under graduate hours in that Bachelor’s), taught in four schools, worked as a professional counselor in a Senior High School, and etc. I told all of that in order to prepare for this most unusual observation: The wises man I ever met was a high school graduate, a bottom shop mechanic, a vet from WWII, and a jackleg historian who wrote a pamphlet which got him excommunicated from his church. I said all of that to say this, I have found that God has His fingers in more pies than Jim Willingham. One has to have respect to the work of God, no matter where one finds it. Who would have ever thought tht Southern Baptists with their record of slavery and racism and contention would be the number one mission force for the biblical faith in the world for over a century, that they would set the example of trying to work through differences, that their very arguments and ups and downs are merely indications of real life cause where such is absent there is no freedom, only misery. I do expect that God, by revealing how awesome He truly is, those attributes that one preacher fussed about in seminary, “Why do I have to learn these things.”(I think he was implying that it was so boring). The real motivating power is the passion for the passion of Christ with His resurrection. Any one who is sold on that, I try to be sold on him or her even if the agreement on everything is far from 100%. I remember telling the Dean and the Professor of Baptist History (the latter had been Harry Truman’s pastor), “If you fellows had some verbal inspirationists on this campus (of SEBTS, then the most liberal of all of the seminaries), you would not be having all of this fussing.” (In the 70s it was fussing). They said, “O we couldn’t have them.” I thought, “Well that means you couldn’t have me.” And that meant I would always vote on the verbal inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility side of the issue….and I made it a point to be at the SBC and voting, when my vote was needed (and when I had the wherewithal to be there)…from 1963 until 1990 ( I was present in 2006, but that was hardly an issue year). My desire was to win by the truth, not by force. win any other way and your really lose. God bless, CB, and keep on studying until you have grasped the original theology and how it works. It took me 10-15 years to even begin to understand it and how to preach it, and I am still learning.
CB
I think I would have to agree wholeheartedly…
><>”
“a culture gone to hell in a wagon pulled by demonic horses”
CB, you have vividly described the American landscape. Unfortunately, the American church used to be counter-culture to the world … in many places it is now a sub-culture of the world. A new round of passionate evangelistic decisional preaching might just wake the church masses from slumber and would certainly disrupt hell’s agenda. Oh God, give us preachers/teachers with fire in their bones! We’ve had enough of the other sort.
I agree with you, Max, about the danger of moulding ourselves to culture. However, I think I disagree that this is a new problem. The American church has pretty consistently adjusted to its culture way too much.
Slavery would be example 1.
Women in the church would be another example, but it seems we are still stuck there. 🙂
Hey, the door was opened. I just had to. 🙂
You are right, Debbie. Some are abandoning the clear teaching of God’s word to mold to this culture and its egalitarianism. That is a great example.
Dave: In scripture where women did indeed do more than we Baptists allow women to do, I disagree.
CB,
“””But a dream, vision, or hallucination is a far cry from an actual and literal appearance of Christ on earth to any person in His resurrected body.”””
I wasn’t parsing the matter the same way you were. I see what you are saying. If I’m reading you right you are NOT suggesting that a “vision” is merely an hallucination.
Also, I agree with you 100%, Jesus will not visit the earth again until the Second Coming–then he ain’t leavin’.
Took me a while but I think I’ve got what you’re saying.
“For where two or three are gathered together in My Name,
there am I in the midst of them.”
( These Words of Our Lord are recorded in the Holy Gospel
of St. Matthew 18:20)
“I will be with you always, even unto the end of the world.”
(These Words of Our Lord are recorded in the Holy
Gospel of St. Matthew 28:20)
Getting back in to the conversation late – sorry.
Part of the conversation has dealt with which comes first – Faith or regeneration. Please let me share a brief personal testimony.
When I was 14 I attended a Revival meeting at Red Bud Baptist Church in Lubbock TX. I was greatly convicted during the service about my need of salvation; so much so, that when the invitation was given I knocked my brother down getting out of the pew to go forward. Once at the front of the church, I told the pastor that I was lost and needed to be saved. He handed me off to a altar worker who spoke with me, but did not lead me to faith in Christ. I knew I was lost, I wanted Christ to be my Saviour, I responded to the prompting of God’s Spirit, but went away unchanged.
For the next seven years I lived out the vice of the youth of the 70’s.
When I was 21, I met Rita and we started attending her church and eventually got married. I knew something in my spiritual life was missing so I began filling it with acts of service, even going out on visitation on Thursday evenings.
One Thursday evening, about 10 o’clock I decided I needed to read the gospel tract I had been handing out to others (“God’s Simple Plan of Salvation” by Ford Porter). I fell under deep conviction and realized that I had not been saved. I followed Ford Porter’s instruction and called upon the Saviour for his redemption. I went forward on Sunday, made a public profession of faith and was baptized. My life changed dramatically. Just a few months later I surrendered to God’s call into the ministry.
NOW, the question I put to those of you who are Calvinist, when was I saved according to the “doctrines of grace?”
Rev Kev,
First, thanks for sharing the story of God saving you.
You said, “Part of the conversation has dealt with which comes first – Faith or regeneration” and after telling the story, ask “when was I saved according to the “doctrines of grace?””
Are you really asking Calvinists when we think you were regenerated? or asking in a general sense when you came to know the Lord? Of course, recognizing that no one can really know something like this. You just want to know how an experience like yours fits into the Calvinistic way of looking at things, right?
In general, I would guess that you were saved when you “fell under deep conviction and realized that [you] had not been saved…and followed Ford Porter’s instruction and called upon the Saviour for his redemption.”
As to when the scales fell off and your heat was opened (regeneration), I suspect that it was the “deep conviction” part of your testimony.
God bless you,
Les
I believe I was saved when I was 21. However, the same conviction was “felt”, “sensed” or “experienced” when I was 14. If faith is the expression of what God did in “regeneration”, why was I not saved at 14? Did “something” go wrong? Or could it be that God’s conviction must be acknowledged and acted upon by the recipient?
If so, this throws a monkey wrench in at least four of the pillars of Calvinism – Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement and Irresistible grace.
Also, I believe the only reason I was not saved at 14 was because of the lack of training and compassion of the pastor and altar worker.
Maybe so, Rev Kev.
Maybe the pastor was poorly trained. If you are anywhere near 40-60 and if your experience was in a Southern Baptist church and the pastor was a graduate of a Southern Baptist seminary, he may well have been poorly trained. That was a major problem among pastors and missionaries back before the CR.
Or, it may very well be that “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”
Rev –
I really don’t mean to sound snarky, so please, please don’t take it that way. I just had a thought when I read that comment, because of any number of conversations I have had with believers and unbelievers alike. I may totally be misunderstanding what you are saying. If so, I apologize in advance.
If someone in your congregation said to you “I believe the only reason I’m not saved is because of your lack of training.” What would you say?
And a follow up question – Do you believe that there are people in hell because you failed them?
In Him,
Jeff.
Jeff – I really don’t mean to sound snarky, so please, please don’t take it that way.
First, there are people in our congregation that I wouldn’t want within 100 yards of the altar as a counselor, and I don’t believe any of our congregation can honestly that I have failed to explain the Gospel too them.
Second – GOD’S DESIRE IS…
THAT NO ONE PERISH – 2Peter 3:9 The Lord is.. longsuffering..,, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
THAT ALL MEN BE SAVED – 1Timothy 2:3-4 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Now, Jeff, that being said, do you believe God has failed because there are people in hell/hades? I think not! I believe man has failed to respond to the Gospel and gone to hell as a result.
> Now, Jeff, that being said, do you believe God has failed because there are people in hell/hades? I think not!
I wholeheartedly agree – 100%. God never fails. If God really wants to save someone, he will (seeing as how He always accomplishes exactly what He sets out to do). Especially since He must perform a miracle in our spirits to raise us to spiritual life so that we turn from the sin we love to the God we hate.
The psalmist said, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me.” Jesus said to Nicodemus, “You must be born again”. Both indicated something new being generated within the person who believes, not something Divine coming into old wine skins of a corrupt heart. The old heart stays and the new heart begins where Christ dwells.
Maybe we should be discussing this with the one coming forward. If the commitment is genuine they will gladly allow the necessary time to better understand and be able to easily and openly state what their true intention is. This would work well with children as well.
Largely because of my own personal experience at age 14 (mentioned previously), I ALWAYS follow up with persons who have made decisions to make sure they understand the Gospel. On many occasions, I have found individuals that had not been properly informed and I ended up leading them through the plan of salvation and to the Lord.
Southern Baptist Churches need to have trained altar workers to deal with a broad spectrum of altar responses, but especially Salvation.
Amen!
Is the ordo salutis really that big a deal with people here with respect to sharing the Gospel? Yes, I know it is with Bob, and perhaps a few Calvinists in here, but I think it is strange.
If I share the Gospel, and someone responds in faith, then my Calvinism informs me as to what I think happened in the sinner’s heart (ie: regeneration, resulting in faith), but it has no bearing on how I share the Gospel, and it has no bearing on when I think they are saved. They are saved when they respond in faith. Perhaps I’m wrong and they are regenerated after they express their faith. It makes no difference. I share the Gospel and they are saved when they respond in faith.
When regeneration occurs is a (sometimes) pleasant academic discussion, but I daresay for most people, Calvninists and non-Calvinists alike, it has no bearing on our sharing the Gospel. I don’t think I ever bring up regeneration when sharing the Gospel.
Bill Mac,
While I did respond to Rev Kevin because he asked, when you say, “but it has no bearing on how I share the Gospel, and it has no bearing on when I think they are saved'” I agree totally.
We should call people to faith in Christ. God’s order of things are good for discussion, but irrelevant to our proclamation.
I agree as well. What my view does is to see the glorious power of God once again as another one is in the Kingdom of God. It’s for my own personal faith, seeing the majesty of God’s power that I think my view is so important.
God never intended for the Gospel to be relegated just to salvation, the Gospel is also for us as Christians to grow us in our faith.
Bill Mac,
You said, “Is the ordo salutis really that big a deal with people here with respect to sharing the Gospel? Yes, I know it is with Bob, and perhaps a few Calvinists in here, but I think it is strange.”
Actually that is not really true. I do not have a problem with the practice of the putting the gospel to work because for us BOTH… it is God who saves and praise God He can save even when I do not do things exactly “by The Book” so to speak. God can save someone listening to Joel Osteen or Binny Hinn, both of whom I would not choose to listen to on a regular basis.
As I said to CB in an earlier post, my problem is with the theology, not the person or even the application of the theology in most cases. Additionally, my problem is not with churches and them doing what they believe is Scripturally correct… or individuals for that matter.
My problem is the influx of the influence in the entities of the SBC and the theological underpinnings that calvinism posits. That is MY SOLE position; period. Now, I can site what I believe are consistencies in the calvinist platform being propagated within the calvinist movement that I can maintain will affect the ministry of the future of the SBC but granted that is speculative and while I on occasion may allude to that, for the most part my comments are almost exclusively aimed at the theology and not the person nor the particular application of the theology.
I may at times, argue the ramifications of a calvinistic position and how that may or may not play itself out in the church or in the denomination… for example I believe this who argument about “asking Jesus into one’s heart” is an objectionable practice to the calvinist, after all Platt does call it damnable… and he does so because of the total depravity, irresistible grace and unconditional election framework. A local pastor preached a message on the “Idols of Evangelism” where he blasted the practice of invitational evangelism, which is really what I see as the heart of the matter in this whole discussion. So, the practice is being blasted because of the theological tenets of the theology itself so it does become fair play in a discussion on the theology, without relegating it to a personal attack.
I hope this helps clear up any misunderstanding on MY position…
><>”
You know, if you would have told me that someday I would have to defend a statement “I believe it’s God who…” to Southern Baptists I would have called you crazy? It just seems like an oxymoron to be defending this to a group of churches.
“””I believe repentance is the affect [sic] of salvation not the cause.”””
Debbie,
I don’t see how you get this from Scripture. Peter said, “Repent and be saved.” Clearly he outlines at least a two-step process. Peter (and other passages) clearly do NOT say, “Since you are saved, repent.”
Also, you say that following the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church will lead to salvation. Clearly, the Roman Catholic Church is “truth with a mixture of error.”
I cannot imagine Paul saying “Go ahead and practice Emperor Worship as long as you mix in Christianity.” Paul said exactly the opposite and many faithful died horrible deaths rather than mix truth and error.
Clearly, your statement represents a false gospel. As you know from logic, any mixture of error makes a statement false. There is no such thing in logic as a “partial truth.” There is no such thing in Christianity as a partial truth.
Whether you miss heaven by a mile or by and inch you have missed it eternally.
Dear Debbie: Keep up the good work. Your critics don’t read very well. they suffer from myopia. They fail to study the past; they have trouble in comparing scripture with scripture, and they put the effect for the cause. Just consider: In order for a dead man to come forth from the grave, i.e., Lazarus, he has to have life given to him. Jesus’ voice conveyed life to him, and then he came forth in response to the word of command that gave him life. In John 5:25, Jesus said, “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear, shall live.” Spiritual dead souls need a life giving power to come in and quicken them. New life requires a seed, a gestation period, and a delivery with manifestations of that life (repentance and faith). these folks never read John Gill on Regeneration and Conversion, or a Rev. White in the Philadelphia Minutes Circular Letter for 1803, or James Petigru Boyce’s Abstract of Systematic Theology, or E.C. Dargan’s Doctrines of our Faith. They have little conception of the Greek text behind these summaries of biblical teachings. In the Summer of 1973 I was taking Hebrew at SEBTS. My professor, a D.Phil., no less, from Oxford, asked me why I believed grace was irresistible. I answered, “Well, if you will look at Ps.65:4, I believe you will find that it is written in the hiphil verb.” The hiphil verb is the causative verb in Hebrew. The professor opened his Hebrew Bible looked at the text and said, “You are right.” Then he closed his Bible and never again said another word to me on the subject. Ps.65:4 says, “Blessed is the man whom you choose and cause to approach unto you.” Cause and effect: Election is the cause, and the grace out of which the choice was made is is the cause of the approach; it is irresistible to the chosen. Every one of the doctrines of grace, all seven of them, are invitations to salvation, wonderfully irresistible, charming, attractive, compellingly winsome, uplifting, engaging, wooing, drawing, fascinating, treating people as responsible beings, impossibilities that enable and empower the individual to come forth, therapeutic paradoxes that bring healing, health, and wholesomeness to the sin-sick, despairing, helpless, hopeless, hapless,enervated, darkened, depraved, dead sinner. It solves the madness problem within so that the demonic wind up setting at the feet of Jesus, fully clothed, and in their right minds. The Heart that is deceitful above all things and desperately suddenly has a new competitor in the breast, a heart of flesh next to the heart of stone, a heart of love vying for dominance and mastery in the individual believer, male and female. And Debbie, these folks also don’t know much about the eldresses of the the Separate Baptists. Neither are they aware of the female minister who gave Southern Baptists a goodly sized church which is now a rather large one, I understand but could be wrong as it has been a few years since I checked on it. They told her that it would never be admitted that the church had been been founded by a woman. O yes, and she preached Sovereign Grace, too. These folks think liberalism was that skepticism introduced by the Moderates and the stupid higher critical approaches to Scripture (really the stuff of the French Philosophes and the enlightenment figures of Great Britain like Hume, Bentham, and others. Adopting that junk with a German baptism of scholarship and then later English scholarship of piety made such approaches seem like the way to go, but really it was nothing short of letting one’s enemies determine your methods of biblical interpretation. What a farce!. And what most Bible believers don’t believe today is that the Bible is a great deep, reflecting the mind of Omniscience that inspired it. That means a wonderful depth of reality and mystery in a clarity and perspicuity which defies the intellectual grasp of man in any and all generations. They don’t know that the doctrines are so constructed as to make the believer balanced, flexible, creative, constant, and magnetic. They don’t realize that the poorest equipped believer can often make greater progress in grasping the word of God with a humble spirit that the most astute scholars using principles that only promote arrogant perceptions of what is actually being saved. I still can’t get over the fact that the wisest man I ever met was a high school graduate, a body shop mechanic, a WWII veteran, and a fellow who did ten years of research in Baptist church history, studying his particular group of United Baptists. He asked me one question that was like a delayed time bomb. About 7 years after he asked it, that question totally demolished my system of eschatology. He also asked some other things and made some comments that did more for my understanding of the Bible than all of the courses I took in 10 schools, institutes, colleges and universities. He lit a flame in me to win the whole earth, and that from a calvinistic perspective or, better still, a Sovereign Grace perspective. I always feel a little ansy about the term from Calvin’s name for two reasons. One is true believers in Sovereign Grace have no need, desire or etc. for using force to get converts, and they were preaching and dying for this stuff before John Calvin was ever born, much less converted, and much less the author of numerous works in theology.
Thank you and Amen to what you have written here Dr. James.
Thank you , Debbie, for your comment. Remember you in prayer.
Did you hear about the blonde who got her theology all wrong and invited Jesus into her SPLEEN? First, would Jesus enter it? And second, is she saved?
If you tell that during church tomorrow, I’ll send you a U-Haul coupon. You’re going to need it.
True story…I led a man to Jesus and baptized him about six months prior to his heart transplant surgery. After the surgery, I jokingly asked our Director of Missions what to do about his conversion experience since the man had asked Jesus into the heart that no longer resided in him. As for the new heart…well, there was no telling where it had been! We just agreed that God could figure all of that out without any rebaptism.
Now that is a great story.
Rick. Are you aware that in some tribal languages the word for heart in Greek is translated by the word for spleen in the receptor language.
The reason is the need to communicate the seat of the will and deep emotion.
This is why beating up on a well excepted figure of speech misses the mark
I do vaguely remember Dr. Corley mentioning the Greek seat of emotions being in the digestive tract. He referenced the way you “feel” on a roller coaster and the “butterflies in your stomach” when you are nervous.
I suppose we could always ask the tribal woman to accept Jesus into her spleen and maybe let the blonde invite Him into her brain, where He is evidently needed the most.
Rick,
“Touche!”
I didn’t have Dr. Corley, but Dr. Munn. He took a very different approach to New Testament Greek that allowed me to have a much deeper appreciation for the nuances of the language.