David Platt Says the Sinner’s Prayer is “Superstitious” and “Unbiblical”

“Father, I know that I have broken your laws and my sins have separated me from you. I am truly sorry, and now I want to turn away from my past sinful life toward you. Please forgive me, and help me avoid sinning again. I believe that your son, Jesus Christ died for my sins, was resurrected from the dead, is alive, and hears my prayer. I invite Jesus to become the Lord of my life, to rule and reign in my heart from this day forward. Please send your Holy Spirit to help me obey You, and to do Your will for the rest of my life. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.”

The Sinner's Prayer

David Platt – Wikipedia

David Platt, a rising star in the Southern Baptist Convention, spoke at the SBC Pastors Conference last week just before the Annual Meeting. During his talk, he emphasized the "pandemic problem" of spiritual deception that is chronic in congregations and encouraged Southern Baptists to be on guard against a "false, superficial faith".

Platt addressed attendees, most of whom were pastors, with these words: "Are we calling people to biblical faith in a day of rampant easy believism? We must be very clear lest we lead people down a damning path of spiritual deception."

Here is Platt explaining at the Verge 2012 Conference why "Accepting Jesus In Your Heart" is superstitious and unbiblical.

As you might imagine, such radical ideas caused quite a stir among Southern Baptists, especially those who describe themselves as "traditional". Their concerns were presented last week at the SBC Annual Meeting, and a debate over the Sinner's Prayer ensued. Christianity Today featured an article regarding what happened – Southern Baptists Debate the Sinners Prayer.

The CT article highlights this portion of Platt's Pastors Conference address:

"I'm convinced that many people in our churches are simply missing the life of Christ, and a lot of it has to do with what we've sold them as the gospel, i.e. pray this prayer, accept Jesus into your heart, invite Christ into your life," Platt said. "Should it not concern us that there is no such superstitious prayer in the New Testament? Should it not concern us that the Bible never uses the phrase, 'accept Jesus into your heart' or 'invite Christ into your life'? It's not the gospel we see being preached, it's modern evangelism built on sinking sand. And it runs the risk of disillusioning millions of souls."

Ted Olsen, who wrote the CT article, explained:

Discussion over the resolution did seem to break down along Calvinist/Arminian lines…

Jared Moore, pastor of New Salem Baptist Church in Houstonville, Kentucky, and a frequent blogger on Reformed theology, spoke against the resolution.

"I live in a community where everyone has asked Jesus to come into their hearts and none of them are at church," he told the delegates. "Many of them live contrary to Scripture. They're not repenting and having faith in Christ, yet they asked Jesus to come into their heart. … I have to get them lost before I can get them saved."

Meanwhile, Steve Gaines, pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church in Cordova, Tennessee, who has preached against Calvinist theology, called the Sinner's Prayer representative of God's New Covenant. He also noted that 262 children at his church recently prayed the Sinner's Prayer and invited Jesus into their heart. (Gaines also preached a defense of the Sinner's Prayer and "accepting Jesus into your heart" last month.)

"While asking Jesus to come into your heart may not be specifically in the Bible, I believe the concept is, just like the terms inerrancy and Trinity," he said.

The Christian Post reported on this SBC business as follows:

The recent decision by delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention to affirm the use of the "sinner's prayer" – known as a prayer of repentance and "inviting Jesus into your heart" – has undermined Calvinism in the denomination and placed a renewed emphasis on traditional Baptist soteriology: if you repent, call on the Lord and believe in Christ for mercy, you are saved.

The resolution, which passed Wednesday by a majority vote of around 80 percent, affirmed the belief that "repentance from sin and personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are necessary for salvation." Citing Romans 10:13, it also affirmed that "repentance and faith involve a crying out for mercy and a calling on the Lord," more commonly known as the "sinner's prayer," as a "biblical expression of repentance and faith."

One strong caution in the resolution: "The 'sinner's prayer' is not an incantation that results in salvation merely by its recitation and should never be manipulatively employed or utilized apart from a clear articulation of the Gospel."

On the one hand, we agree with Platt that if the Sinner's Prayer is just a rote prayer, then it is absolutely worthless to the one who recites it. However, we believe there are many who pray it sincerely and truly experience a heart change.

How can David Platt know what is in the heart of the one who prays the Sinner's Prayer? In all fairness, Platt regrets how he phrased his concern about this prayer; however, there appears to be a growing contingent in Christendom that calls into question this prayer and "asking Jesus into one's heart".

Trevin Wax recently wrote a post featured on The Gospel Coalition website entitled: Is it Biblical to ask Jesus Into Your Heart? He presents his ideas as follows:

The Southern Baptist blogosphere has erupted in conversation on whether it’s proper to use phrases like “asking Jesus into your heart,” “accepting Christ,” or methods like the “sinner’s prayer” when sharing the gospel. Like many online conversations, this one has tended to generate more heat than light, and I get the feeling that good folks on both sides of this issue may be talking past one another.

This discussion over methods and terms has been bubbling under the surface for a good while now. A younger generation of pastors look out at the state of evangelicalism and are rightly concerned that many people with cultural Christianity in their background cling to assurance they are saved despite an overwhelming lack of evidence of genuine conversion. It’s no surprise that some pastors are blaming the methods and terms that became prevalent in the previous generation. That’s why we hear a pastor like David Platt consider a phrase like “asking Jesus into your heart” to be “dangerous” and “damning.”

We want to hear from our TWW "family". Do you believe the Sinner's Prayer is "superstituous" and "unbiblical" and that asking Jesus into your heart is "dangerous" and "damning"?

Lydia' Corner: Joel 1:1-3:21 Revelation 1:1-20 Psalm 128:1-6 Proverbs 29:18

Comments

David Platt Says the Sinner’s Prayer is “Superstitious” and “Unbiblical” — 165 Comments

  1. I came to believe in Jesus at the age of nine by coming to the altar and praying a sinners prayer. Yep……the last time I checked – I am still saved. 🙂 Praise the Lord!

  2. I do think that lots of evangelical xtians (not just S. Baptists) rely too much on formulaic things like “the 4 spiritual laws” (etc.) and can all too easily rely on certain kinds of wording in terms of praying the “right” prayer (in all kinds of circumstances).

    How ironic that some who have lobbed all kinds of criticism at the so-called “rote” prayers of the liturgical churches have fallen into the same reliance on rote, formulaic recitation of a certain combination of words to get God’s attention.

    * Note: imo, anything can become fairly meaningless if recited as if it’s a formula.

  3. As for my own time in evangelical/charismatic circles, I was very struck by the “if you say/do this, God will respond”” (in ways that were never made clear) philosophy of so many… it baffled me when I 1st encountered it at age 16, as it was – and is – so different from the things I had been taught about prayer to that point.

    Not knowing any better, I embraced this kind of thinking – to an extent, at least – and can only now (decades later) look back and see that there is a fair amount of superstition and even hopes of manipulation (“If I say this, he will do that“) in it all. (Not that people from other traditions are immune to such thinking – we’re not. But it’s so much more prominent in evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal circles.)

  4. Sigh … this brand differentiation stuff seems more lame now than ever. I’m a Calvinist and I don’t think there’s any need to freak out about the Sinner’s Prayer. I can think of a number of assinine and impossible man vows that are far worse to pray than the Sinner’s Prayer.

    Formula isn’t even the problem. Who’s going to stop praying “Our Father … ” just because it’s been written out? Psalm 23? Psalm 19? Freaking out about rote prayers seems odd to me now because if you think about it our prayers are often rote because our lives are full of routines. It’s okay to be thankful for the same family today you were thankful for yesterday, right? Or is that in danger of being rote and therefore not pietist enough?

  5. WTH – while i do agree with you in some ways, I honestly thought that the *words used in the “sinner’s prayer* were somehow the exact words required to find salvation in Christ.

    I was 16, very impressionable – and the adults who did the “recite after me” deal seemed to believe in the power of the words. Now, they were good people, and did a wonderful thing in telling me about Jesus and in praying with me, but still…

  6. I have some concerns with Platt’s theology in places when I have read his books. For the most part I like his books but in noticing some elements on how he phrases “wrathful” God has bothered me. Instead what I have found more often is the element of how a merciful God will allow those who don’t follow him down repentant path of his fellowship to become harden in their own stubborn soul and thus stray in apostasy to where they believe a delusion. What has happened to terms like “fellowship of his suffering” which Platt does mention in his book Radical. The prayer can be a good one if one is to mean Lordship of the heart. Perhaps Platt is concerned with oversimplification.

  7. numo wrote:

    As for my own time in evangelical/charismatic circles, I was very struck by the “if you say/do this, God will respond”” (in ways that were never made clear) philosophy of so many… it baffled me when I 1st encountered it at age 16, as it was – and is – so different from the things I had been taught about prayer to that point.

    “If you do this, God WILL Respond”?

    Isn’t the definition of Magick where the mortal is the one in control of and giving the orders to the supernatural being/force and not the other way round?

  8. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Isn’t the definition of Magick where the mortal is the one in control of and giving the orders to the supernatural being/force and not the other way round?

    Exactly!

    *

    About Platt: I’m no fan. But I think he has a point here.

  9. ‘numo wrote:

    WTH – while i do agree with you in some ways, I honestly thought that the *words used in the “sinner’s prayer* were somehow the exact words required to find salvation in Christ.

    I was 16, very impressionable – and the adults who did the “recite after me” deal seemed to believe in the power of the words. Now, they were good people, and did a wonderful thing in telling me about Jesus and in praying with me, but still…

    In my junior college years, I was told my first “sinner’s prayer” didn’t take because I didn’t recite it word-for-word like a verbal-component magic spell. There’s a reason the crowd over at Slacktivist calls it “Say-the-Magic-Words Salvation”.

    The funny thing is, the first half of the Sinner’s Prayer (TM) is usually plagiarized directly from a Catholic prayer called the Act of Contrition. And the Four Spiritual Laws (TM) look like they were also plagiarized from the four section headings of Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius, the Jesuit guided meditation.

    I do NOT like the Altar Call model of salvation. It puts all the emphasis on the exact Damascus Road moment of salvation (sometimes down to the hour/minute/second), completely disregarding conversion by gradual catechism without any single “AHA!” moment. In my denomination, both forms (Damascus Road and Gradual Catechism) are valid. But the Altar Call model conditions you to expect only lightning-from-the-sky spectacular conversions, and once you say the magic words and are Saved (TM), now what? No followup, no catechism, no living your life, no growing in wisdom and sanctification, just wait for God to beam you up to Fluffy Cloud Heaven. Or Backslide (TM) and take another trip down the aisle to be Saved (TM) again. And again. And again…

    The whole Altar Call model originated with 19th Century tent-revival evangelists in order to get a head count of converts, and up until Prohibition was often accompanied by signing a Dry pledge. The model seems made for the high-pressure sales pitch. Like selling Fire Insurance with a complementary Rapture boarding pass.

  10. Deb wrote:

    WTH,
    Well-stated! When will the Neo-Cals (Calvinistas) quit narrowing their theology?

    When their Truly Reformed Churches with their Perfectly-Parsed Theology all have only one member each.

  11. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    ‘numo wrote:
    WTH – while i do agree with you in some ways, I honestly thought that the *words used in the “sinner’s prayer* were somehow the exact words required to find salvation in Christ.
    I was 16, very impressionable – and the adults who did the “recite after me” deal seemed to believe in the power of the words. Now, they were good people, and did a wonderful thing in telling me about Jesus and in praying with me, but still…
    In my junior college years, I was told my first “sinner’s prayer” didn’t take because I didn’t recite it word-for-word like a verbal-component magic spell. There’s a reason the crowd over at Slacktivist calls it “Say-the-Magic-Words Salvation”.
    The funny thing is, the first half of the Sinner’s Prayer (TM) is usually plagiarized directly from a Catholic prayer called the Act of Contrition. And the Four Spiritual Laws (TM) look like they were also plagiarized from the four section headings of Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius, the Jesuit guided meditation.
    I do NOT like the Altar Call model of salvation. It puts all the emphasis on the exact Damascus Road moment of salvation (sometimes down to the hour/minute/second), completely disregarding conversion by gradual catechism without any single “AHA!” moment. In my denomination, both forms (Damascus Road and Gradual Catechism) are valid. But the Altar Call model conditions you to expect only lightning-from-the-sky spectacular conversions, and once you say the magic words and are Saved (TM), now what? No followup, no catechism, no living your life, no growing in wisdom and sanctification, just wait for God to beam you up to Fluffy Cloud Heaven. Or Backslide (TM) and take another trip down the aisle to be Saved (TM) again. And again. And again…
    The whole Altar Call model originated with 19th Century tent-revival evangelists in order to get a head count of converts, and up until Prohibition was often accompanied by signing a Dry pledge. The model seems made for the high-pressure sales pitch. Like selling Fire Insurance with a complementary Rapture boarding pass.

    : applause applause applause : (Note: I’m Lutheran. ;))

    And I’m amused by the direct linkage you’ve made between the act of contrition, St. Ignatius Loyola and the “sinners’ prayer” + 4 spiritual laws.

    As for the prayer that “didn’t take,” well… [rolls eyes]

  12. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Deb wrote:
    WTH,
    Well-stated! When will the Neo-Cals (Calvinistas) quit narrowing their theology?
    When their Truly Reformed Churches with their Perfectly-Parsed Theology all have only one member each.

    Perhaps they can start their own denom?

    Meanwhile, there are other ways to deal with this stuff, although I think the tempest in a teapot over the so-called “sinners’ prayer” is all too typical of most church conferences, no matter what the denomination.

    Seems to be our human tendency to get hung up on the small stuff, no?

  13. I really am on the fence on this one. On the one hand I have seen easy believism run rampant, like the woman who once told about her husband who had zero interest in anything spiritual, but she didn't need to worry about him because once, many years before he had gone to a service with her, gone forward and "got saved"! RIIIIIGHT ..  (I wish I could be that confident in a formula)

    On the other hand, I have been in Calvinist churches that doubted everyone's salvation, and every week's sermon addressed some obscure spiritual issue and questioned our salvation. The only reason I can think of that we weren't all suffering terminal depression is that most of us didn't quite believe what was being preached.

    I really believe that both extremes are unhelpful, that there is a middle ground where the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit is allowed room to happen differently for different people. I know the date of my own conversion, sitting alone at home with a Bible (aged 16) My husband has no definitive experience, but he was brought up in the church, and in late high school he had to make some choices, which actually showed him that he had already chosen Christ (or been chosen by Him, I don't mind which). Is one of us more Christian than the other? Neither of us ever responded to an altar call (in fact we both grew up in churches where that wasn't the norm). I say, whatever works to bring people into a life of faith.

  14. I have always felt that the sinner's prayer and the idea of "asking Jesus into your heart" are totally unbiblical.

    The sinner's prayer CAN be a useful way of helping someone (who has been convicted by the Holy Spirit of their need to turn to Jesus in repentance and faith) to express their commitment. BUT so often it takes on a life of it's own. People end up believing that if you have prayed this prayer then you are a christian, and pastors and evangelists use all sorts of manipulative techniques to get people to pray it. Both these are highly dangerous.

  15. It really all comes back to the heart of the individual. Even though I would not condone a “formula” prayer, I also would not make a blanket statement that those who said the sinners prayer are all doomed to hell because it results in easy believism. It is the same with Calvinism/Lordship salvation when they state that anyone who comes to the Lord must give up all their sin before Jesus will take away their sin. Where is that in Scripture? Christ said for us to believe in Him and we will be saved. It all comes back to where our hearts were when we first came to that knowledge of Christ- did or did we not know we are sinners? Did or did we not believe? This is where most denominations get it wrong because they rely on formulas. Like I said I came to believe in Christ at nine; I went to a Reformed church two years ago and that was the first time I started doubting my salvation because there was this thought that children could not really know about Christ at a young age because they were not “knowledgeable” enough about Scripture. This is what I call a formula and resulted in two years of doubt until I left this church and the doubts subsided- thank you Jesus for that! It has to do with the heart- if one relys on a formula or magic prayer or whatever to gain salvation or think that God will respond with formulas, certain incantations yet their heart be far from Him they are sadly mistaken. I, at nine, said a sinners prayer but I believed in Jesus.

  16. The Narrowing of the Evangelical Mind. Let us find new and more exacting reasons to separate ourselves from our brothers (since sisters have little value anyway) to provide our fealty to our God — the perfect, infallible and inerrant Scriptures… as we understand them, of course. I like my God wrapped in leather and portable — much easier to control that way. 
    As I've written ad nauseum,  [ forgive my narcissistic tendency to be self-referential 🙂 ] the issue isn't the prayer said at one's moment of salvation (if one claims said moment to have taken place — I know far too many folk who cannot point to a day or time), it is what happens afterwards. Discipleship (in the non-controlling, non-shepherding movement manner) is the key. Having folk walk along side young believers and gently guide them in their new faith. It's not sticking them in rows on Sunday mornings & evenings and the occasional Wednesday nights, and having them become pew-fodder for the "Man" bringing the "Word of God." 
    We wouldn't be having this ridiculous worry about the validity or efficacy of the Sinner's Prayer, if we actually had churches filled with well-loved and well-discipled people. (And please note, when I write about discipleship, it has nothing to do with what is practiced by churches like SGM. I know too many folks who get the shakes when the D-word is used, based on their experience of hyper-controlling "leaders.")
    My 2 cents, Canadian. (Even if I'm over in Blighty for my son, Rylan's wedding.)
    BTW. Am loving the new look of the blog and have been reading faithfully, just no time to comment. Love the community that Deb and Dee have built/are building. Big hugs.

  17. Faith said:  It has to do with the heart- if one relys on a formula or magic prayer or whatever to gain salvation or think that God will respond with formulas, certain incantations yet their heart be far from Him they are sadly mistaken.

    Exactly!  What parent wouldn't respond to a child's plea because they weren't standing in the place of choice or saying the "correct" words?  God knows the heart!
     

  18. I might add that my conversion happened after reading a prayer on the last page of David Wilkerson's book, "The Cross and the Switchblade."  Also of interest is the fact that at the time of the "reading," I wasn't even sure there really <i>was</i> a God, but was hoping beyond hope.  The change was evident to my husband who asked several days later…."what in the world has happened to you?"  It was then that I knew there <i>was</I> a God and He had heard that prayer and I was born again! 
     
    Evidently they were the right words read from the sofa…having never even owned a Bible. 
     

  19. People need to stop trashing other people's experiences in order to feel smug and superior. If you look at the neoreformed, the commonality among them is a condescending smug attitude. Look at the photographs, read the quotations, you will see it.

  20. Numo

    Statement of the day * Note: imo, anything can become fairly meaningless if recited as if it’s a formula.”

  21. I don't have time this morning to write everything I want to on this topic.  For now (until I get home this afternoon) let's just say that, like HUG, I was totally theologically messed up in my younger days by the Sinner's Prayer and the associated "sales pitch" methodology.  And don't even get me started on "fire insurance"…
     
    Also, NOT a fan of David Platt.  Not only is he neo-Calvinist, his definition of the American Dream (which his entire book "Radical" is based on) is complete bunk.  He thinks the American Dream = stuff and materialism.  But the American Dream also equals things like freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  So Platt goes around preaching against the very thing that gives him to the freedom to openly preach.  Duh.

  22. I grew up Independent Baptist & spent my post-college years at SBC and other Baptistic churches.  No where in the Bible does it say to "ask Jesus into your heart," and yes, I believe the Sinner's Prayer (TM) is often used as some sort of talisman to force God's good graces on people.  I have family members who have no interest whatsoever in God or "church" (however they define it), but the rest of the family seems to be all right with the apparent agnosticism because "they prayed the prayer and asked Jesus into their hearts as kids.  Once saved, always saved."  
     
    I also grew up near areas with big bus ministries into underprivileged parts of large cities where children would be led in a recitation of the Sinner's Prayer (TM) in order to boost the numbers for the bus ministry.  Kids were "saved" over and over, simply because they were guilted into repeating some words.  Maybe they weren't sincere enough the other times (they were told) because there was no behavior change.  Better to pray the prayer again in the hope this time the kids would mean it and escape eternal hellfire.

  23. I always assumed asking Jesus into our hearts came from Revelation 3:20. From the NASB (The version Jesus used):
    Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.
     
    Ok, not exactly the same phraseology, but it seems close enough to me…

  24. <blockquote>@ Hester
    Many approach faith like a formula. It reminds me of high school algebra.
    — Eagle</blockquote>
    Reminds me more of Ritual Magic, where you have to say the words exactly right, draw the pentacle or magic circle exactly right, and make the proper rituals and ceremonies exactly right or you're in a world of hurt.
    <blockquote>I always assumed asking Jesus into our hearts came from Revelation 3:20.
    — M</blockquote>
    That's probably the origin of the idea; at least that was the Zip Code recited to proof-text it.  Whether the application accurately reflected the original passage (and its context in the whole) is a good question.
    But Evangelicals (and other non-liturgical churches) seem to be tunnel-visioned on the way they do it being the One True Way.  It's like how nonconformists always seem to conform in their expression of nonconformity.

  25. I agree with much of what Bill McKinnon has said in his comment. Southern Baptists as a whole and Baptists for that matter, have been all about numbers. This many were saved at Vacation Bible School. This many at the revival, this many came forward at this service. And discipleship has not been there.  Southern Baptists tended to manipulate people forward, give them words to repeat and then counted them while patting ourselves on the back.
     
    I think on this David Platt has a point. I don't always agree with David Platt, but I urge you to listen to his words several times if necessary. We need to take both salvation and discipleship seriously and I think as Southern Baptists we have failed miserably in both. Some are born again, a large number, but there is also a large number who are not or who I would question.

  26. I have come to deeply appreciate the original sinner's prayer, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your Kingdom".  Who has adequate words to express to God our need for salvation–perhaps this is referenced in the intercession of the Holy Spirit on our behalf with groanings and utterings that words are not adequate to express.  
    In the rare times over the last year or so when I have been called upon to offer public prayer in the congregation, I have chosen to do the following:  a time of silent prayer followed by this brief statement:  "Lord, we thank You".  Since stepping away from formal leadership, I am acutely aware at how often, leaders especially, use language in their congregational prayers that is manipulative, self-referential, and personal-agenda driven rather than simple, grateful, loving communication with God.  

  27. What needs to looked at here is not the sinner's prayer, but what preceeds the praying of those words. I've always heard  the Gospel presented from the basis that God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.   Everything shared or preached on sunday is more or less the benefits of becoming a Christian.  There is nothing shared that shows the person they are in sin and are in fact "children of God's wrath"….that their state of heart is wicked.  Its a fact that we all know is true, but afraid to say because it will turn away sinners from church or make them angry.  So we water down the gospel to make it more palatable.   If we use Jesus' example of asking the sinner if they have kept the ten commandment it will  show them they aren't a "good person" ( which everyone believes they are). The Holy Spirit will awaken their conscience and they will be cry out, "God have mercy on me a sinner".  The sinner can't know God's love until they understand the cross (because that was God's way of showing his love for the world).  And you can't show the sinner the cross without talking about their sin (but in love and compassion)  Then repentance and turning away from sin takes on a whole new meaning when you come to the sinner's prayer.  One thing I have found in my own witnessing or asking others what their Christian life is about is that everyone pretty much says the same thing.  "I accepted Christ in my heart, but what actually happened is that they added the benefits of being a Christian to the life they were already living….no change……no repentance, just "accepting Christ.  One thing I find very insightful is that Jesus never started a conversation with a sinner by telling them how much he loved them.  

  28. Both sides are right here.
    Platt is right with respect to the verbal expression of the Christian faith.  Christians would do well to use the terms that Jesus and the apostles used when expressing faith.  If we do that, we run into less problems.  The terms that are used over and over again are "believe", "faith", "repent", and "follow."
    We do not see terms like "personal relationship with Jesus", "ask Jesus into your heart" etc. in the Bible.  Why not stick closely to the terms that Jesus himself used?
    Gaines is right  that these phrases are based on concepts in the Bible.  And belief is expressed many ways in the Bible.  Sometimes with words.  Sometimes without.
    There is no magic incantation, but there is no rule that says certain expressions are correct and others are wrong.  The so-called "sinner's prayer" is fine.
    The concern is that we miscommunicate the Christian faith to people, and that is a valid concern.
    I believe it is fine to use modern language to help express concepts in the Christian faith (e.g. the modern therapeutic term – "personal relationship with Jesus"), but there needs to be care taken that the concepts don't actually contort or swallow up the true meaning of the Christian faith and cause confusion.
    So, they really are both correct.
    The words of a prayer don't get you in, but they don't keep you out either.  It's about the heart.  And words don't even have to be used.

  29. I haven't read all the comments but I'll say what I think anyway.
    This isn't about Calvinism or any other form of soteriology. It's about a sinner before a just and holy God, and a follower of Christ who wants to help the sinner find saving faith. No committee or resolution or preacher standing in a pulpit can decide how that needs to be done. Someone has to lead that person to understand sin, repentance (which most people misinterpret), and saving faith, and simply lead them to do what the Gospel requires. 
    Can the "sinner's prayer" be misused? Sure. But so can the Bible. So let's not start throwing out everything that can be misused, or all we'll have left is a handful of air.
    Is something wrong with how we're generally going about all this? You bet, or else 2/3 of Southern Baptists wouldn't be staying home on Sundays, when the Bible clearly states  "..to each has been given the manifestation of the Holy Ghost, for the common good".  

  30. As for myself, I am totally in agreement with HUG. I can't tell you how many times I invoked the Magickal formula trying to get saved, only to be frustrated over and over again that I must have recited it incorrectly because Jesus never seemed to make it into my heart.
    Then at age 51, Jesus came and got me and since then I've not had the hand-wringing over my salvation. How on earth to explain it? I suppose it sounds a little magickal, too…it was definitely supernatural! 🙂
     

  31. I'd say this was pretty hard to take for most traditional SBC'ers…

    I attended a small, independent baptist church with my grandma from the age of 4 to about 9-10 almost every Sunday. My uncle was the pastor. The rules of the ABC's were pushed down my throat each Sunday

    A-Admit you're a sinner

    B-Believe that Jesus is the Christ

    C-Confess & Ask Jesus in your heart.

    I think I prayed the "sinner's prayer" 10,000 times because 1) I was a scared little girl hearing hellfire and brimstone from the pulpit. I wanted to make sure it "took" and having true OCD as a child didn't help with me worrying it didn't "take" enough.  2) My parents were lacksidasical Quakers. They don't do any of that kind of thing, so church with grandma was a different experience.

    Now that I'm 35 and most definitely not a Calvinist, I'd say it all boils down to the heart. We can't judge that, ever. Only God can. 

    Like Lynne said above, I do believe many modern evangelical churches are rife with "believe-ism" so I do have some issues with the prayer being forced over and over Sunday after Sunday. It's almost as if some pastors cannot effectively end the service if there isn't at least 1-100 people come up during altar call, or raise their hands, or whatever.

     

  32. This is typical Reformed Baptist.  Heard it 30 years ago in  Al Martin influenced churches. 

    It started with looking at everything done in  church to see if it lines up to how the early church did worship – bowing down at the altar of the almighty Regulative Principle.   If the bible doesn't say to do it, then we don't put it in the worship service,  hence, no special music, no soloists, no choir, no altar calls and no sinner's prayer tacked on at sermon's end.  They also believe the sinner's prayer is coercive, reaching into the Holy Spirit's realm of
    influence.    (Nevermind that this thinking somehow doesn't apply to personal opinion presented as truth during the sermon.)

    But because Calvinistas don't know when to stop, and the theology has already been all nailed shut years ago with the writing of the Westminster Confession, they are left with trying to make their mark by reaching  beyond the worship service into everyday life.  (And the off-putting way in which they do it – superiority, condescension, anger, obfuscates the gospel message and makes for a volatile bunch of people.)

    I won't be surprised if one day one of these bull-horn Calvinistas decides Christians should all pull their right pant leg on first and then the left, with the salvation of anyone who doesn't, suspect. 
     
     
     
     

  33. I have had the privilege of attending both physical and spiritual births. My role in both cases was to be a helper, a servant, a resource, an encourager.  

    It is still a bit of a mystery how natural birth starts, what it is that triggers the labour process. But the certainty is that once there is a baby, there will be a birth.  Preferably it will be a natural birth free of interventions that can lead to complications, but occasionally there will be problems which require surgery. 

    I believe that spiritual birth starts with God working and giving faith to a person.  It is an amazing and awe-inspiring experience to be speaking with someone who is experiencing that new faith and grasp of their own sin and repentance and the love of God and Jesus' sacrifice, etc, etc.  These experiences are among my greatest treasures and just thinking of them refreshes my own faith.

    It is my constant prayer in both situations that I would be aware of the Spirit’s; prompting and that I would not damage the process through my own impatience.  I would be very unlikely to use "the sinners prayer"  because it  seems so much of  an "I will tell you what to do and when you do it you can be sure of your salvation based on your own works"…. But  I might ask the person what they would like to say to God, or if there is a verse that they know of or that we have just read or talked of which they would like to paraphrase back to God.  I might pray for them, but I would not have the nerve to tell them what to say to God.

    It occurs to me that the "just say this and you are saved" method can lead to spiritual complications just like the interventions to make labour faster or easier often lead to physical and emotional complications. 
    "I asked Jesus into my heart" is a sweet phrase, but is not nearly adequate to describe all that's happening in salvaton.
     
     

  34. The words of a prayer don't get you in, but they don't keep you out either.  It's about the heart.  And words don't even have to be used.

    ^That.

  35. I get kind of tweaked out by pet expressions "have you asked Jesus in your heart", too.

    Alter calls are another one for me.  And here's one more that I remember from childhood:  the pastor asked people to raise their hands if they asked Jesus to come into their hearts.  "With every head bowed and eyes closed", they wanted to do a headcount.  And then what?  Were they discipled?  Or forgotten?  The numbers weren't forgotten (they were noted in the bulletin, etc) , but I have a hunch their lives might have been. 

    And while every head was bowed and all eyes were closed, how many of us peeked?  I sure did.  I wondered if I was sinning by peeking, too.   So then I needed to recite the Sinner's prayer again – lol.   Repeat this same situation a number of times.   I don't know how many times I recited the Sinner's prayer to save my soul.  Is there a limit on how many you can do?

    And how about that alter call?  Was your salvation valid if you didn't go up to the front?    Could you remain at your seat to vaidate your salvation, or did you have to go up to the alter in front of everyone?  Could you get a raincheck on that alter call?   What if you wanted to go up for that alter call, but decided not to because you realized Jonny was there and Jonny thought you were already saved – oops.  You could always do that alter call later, when Jonny wasn't there, right?  yikes.

    Something seems amiss.  It's not a formula, it's not the perfect words, it's not if your eyes are opened or closed during the recitation of the Sinner's prayer, or it's not a matter if you went up to the alter or stayed at your seat.  These are  distractions and seem a commercialized, rather than heart-felt responses, IMHO.

     

     

  36. Here is my opinion on the sinner’s prayer kerfuffle.

    There is nothing wrong with praying the sinner’s prayer if it is down from the heart. I have never met anybody who rotely said the sinner’s prayer who remained a truly committed Christian. I have also met Christians who did not pray a sinner’s prayer yet were deeply committed Christians. I have also met those who were “committed” Neo-Calvinists who are now atheists. It is not doctrinal purity, it is not a specific pray, it is the heart of the person interacting with the Spirit of God which causes the transformation.

    To blithely say that such a prayer is heretical, blasphemous or leading people to go to hell is ridiculous is akin to saying that all who drink wine are alcoholics or all who do not believe in pretrib rapture are going to go to hell.

    I also think there is a bit of an agenda in this statement.There is an underlying belief for some Calvinistas the some people are created to go to hell and are part of the non elect. I wonder: could he be saying that he is afraid that such people who prayer the sinner’s prayer are deceiving themselves because, no matter what they do, they are hell bound?

    I don’t know.But, sooner or later, one can see if the person is a committed Christian or not and such a person should not be judged on how theologically charming and Calvinista appearing their conversion appears.

    Remember, your glamorous blog queen became a Christian during an episode of Star Trek and would take offense with anyone saying that such a conversion is not in keeping with some Institute of Calvin.

  37. To our readers
    Dee is having trouble with her computer and the reply button. I am loving this discussion but cannot jump on 80% of the time. GBTC is aware and we are trying to figure out “what gives.”

  38. Mike/Anonymous

    My conversion does not mirror your suggestions albeit they are good suggestions. I became a Christian during an episode of Star Trek. I knew that the Creator of the universe wanted to relate to me and cared about me. At that moment, I whispered that I believed. However, this rather unorthodox conversion “took.” Within a week, I was reading, and understanding for the first time, the Bible. I read from 1 John 1 and began to understand the darkness and sin. i readily admitted I was a sinner. I had lived life long enough to know that I did bad things.

    God gave me a love for reading and I was tearing through every book I could find but particularly those my CS Lewis, and of all things, The Cross and the Switchblade, all of which I found at my local library and a small Catholic bookstore.I didn’t have much help from a n evangelical perspective living in the Boston area. It took me time to find Park Street Church and excellent Christian teaching.

    That is why i don’t like people saying ‘unBiblical” etc. when it does to people’s stories. God works in many ways. From what I can tell, Star Trek was not part of the Book of Acts, either. God works and who are we to say what is “correct” or “incorrect” about how a person came to the Lord. They came, period.

  39. M
    I believe that “asking Jesus into your heart” did come from that verse in Revelation.Now, some hardcore Calvinistas have a cow if we use it that way because of the part “If anyone opens the door and let;s me in.” They believe that we are so screwed up we can’t open that door. So, I believe that is one of the unspoken reasons for Platt’s statement.

  40. Dee and GBTC –

    The "reply" and "quote" buttons are not working on my iPhone either :(.  They were working a few days ago.

  41. Okay, I promised to tell you about my experience with the sinner's prayer and here it is.  I went to Awanas as a kid.  Typical Baptist stuff, the Awana missionaries would come once every few weeks, give us a "Gospel message," and then say that if anyone wanted to "ask Jesus into their heart," please follow them into the other room.  (I don't remember these Gospel messages being high on content, but then I was eight so who knows what they said.  I also don't remember the word "sin" being used much except for the phrase "Jesus died for your sins.")  "Asking Jesus into your heart" was understood to be how you "got saved," even though nobody ever defined what either of those phrases meant.

     

    So one week at home, after one of these Gospel messages, I told mom I wanted to ask Jesus into my heart.  For some reason I was too nervous to say the prayer myself, so mom said it.  The next week when I told the Awana missionaries this, they told me the prayer didn't take because I didn't say it myself.  So then I wondered whether or not I was "really" saved.  The next year sometime, after another Gospel message, I raised my hand to go into the other room with one of the missionaries to ask Jesus into my heart.  I remember always wondering what kind of mystical process happened in that room, and when I got in there I remember it feeling like some very dramatic moment.  I prayed the prayer and then they told me I was really, REALLY saved now.

     

    Looking back, of course, none of it was dramatic or probably important at all, because it was basically "Magic Words" evangelism.  You said that prayer and you were "in."  That was all.  Nothing said about behavior afterwards or anything like that.  So no, my experience with altar call / sinner's prayer evangelism has not been good.  Clearly saying a certain string of words doesn't save you.  Only faith can do that.  I think that needs to be made very clear to kids in these situations, because I KNOW that, at the time, I thought I was saved by praying the prayer.  (Of course, many Calvinists take this so far in the other direction that you can NEVER know whether or not you're saved, because every little sin you commit, no matter how minor, indicates a major "heart" problem and might mean you're lost.)

     

    I do, however, think that if you personally want to pray that prayer and it's genuine, then go right ahead.  It just shouldn't be forced on people as the "only way" or a required ritual, and certainly shouldn't be presented this way to impressionable children.

     

    (I've also found that all sorts of dumb metaphors accumulate in altar call-type evangelism.  The worst one I've heard is that all humans have a "Jesus-shaped hole in their heart" and that's why we need to ask him in.  I can't even begin to describe how much the phrase "fire insurance" cheapens grace and salvation.  It really shouldn't be used at all.)

  42. There are so many different angles to hit this thing from it's hard to pick one. 

    Platt has a point about quick prayerism, or say-the-prayerism, though I wonder if he would call it that or something else.  I have seen that method in action and it is abismal.  I knew someone once who had been a victim of it and lived in a state of perpetual uncertainty because though he prayed the prayer like he was supposed to (and who knows how many times), he didn't understand the gospel nor the issue the gospel addresses. 

    On another occasion I heard a popular teacher giving an altar call to her audience where she said something like, "You may have prayed this prayer 50 times and it didn't take.  Well, you come down here and do it again and this time it'll take because this time you'll really mean it!"  I'm not quite sure why someone is doing something 50 times if they know they don't really mean it?  I suppose they could be OCD but I'm thinking it's much more likely they are not understanding the issues.  And this particular preacher did not help matters much because I could not tell you she preached the atonement with any clarity.  I don't remember her mentioning the cross or sin at all.  But this 51st time it'll take because the issue really is you didn't mean it any of the other 50 times you did it.

    There is a reason why Paul determined to know nothing among people except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.  How can they believe something they have not heard?  So they are doomed to go back 50 times…51 times….Or else, having heard, they have not believed, but these generally do understand it and reject it.

    People may pray a prayer to indicate reception of the message and desire for reconciliation by faith in His blood.  I did.  But for the life of me I cannot recall the content of that prayer.  I do, however, remember that was the day I learned that Jesus died for me and what that means and that was the day I trusted Him to save me.  My hope is not in a prayer but in the Risen Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.

    When people, usually other Christians, ask for my salvation testimony I ask if they want the long version or the short version.  If they say the short version, I tell them "Jesus Christ and Him crucified."  If they want the long version I tell them "Christ our Passover sacrificed for us."  But if they are more interested in what I did to get saved than in what He did to save me… Houston, we have a problem.  Because then they are not trying to find out what I believe about the cross, but whether I "did it right."

    I did pray a prayer when I got saved.  But I am not saved because I prayed a prayer.  I am saved because God promised that anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved and He is good to His word.  I did not manipulate God because I prayed.  I did not make Him do anything because I prayed.  He did what He willed to do, including making that promise, and the provision for it (God will provide a Lamb) in the first place.  In short, I am saved because He saved me.

  43. Bridget

    My reply button only works sometimes. I am not sure what is going on but GBTC is working on it. If anyone else is experiencing the same problems let us know.

  44. Hester  said: 'm not quite sure why someone is doing something 50 times if they know they don't really mean it?  I suppose they could be OCD 

     

    I can only speak for myself here — but OCD was a real thing for me then, is now, and always will be. It's not something people should joke about, but they do.  Kids & adults with anxiety disorders, etc. can very much worry about it "taking" too. We humans like to be sure. And unfortunately faith isn't black and white, especially when you are dealing with these sorts of things. 

  45. I think it presumptuous for anybody to say what David Platt said in his statement.  Only God knows the heart of the person who comes to Him by faith, who responds to the preaching of Word, the gospel.  When I came to Christ many years ago, I did not pray the sinner's prayer because I did not know it at all but I responded to the proclamation of the gospel and gave my life to Christ.  Jesus has been my Lord and Savior from that time; and He is real to me from the beginning and I have complete assurance of my salvation.  Beloved has been accepted in the Beloved ever since.  Praise God.

    Now I think there are 3 components of saving faith: the object of our faith is Jesus Christ and we need to know something about Him, His Person, His Works… and affirm the truth of this content, have the conviction as regards this content to be true and then trust our lives into the hands of Christ, our Savior, resulting in justification.

    I know folks who say they are Christians but have no assurance of their salvation, others who know a lot about Jesus and the Bible but do not believe, still others do not know justifying faith…and many others do not manifest the fruit of the Spirit in their lives although they have been in the church all the lives.  Only the all-knowing God knows where each one of us is at any time.  No formula would do when it comes to humans.  I believe the faithful proclamation of the Word, the good news, and trust in the Holy Spirit who may ignite the Word and plant a seed or regenerate the human heart by His power; that's what seemed to happen to me.

    By the way, I believe regeneration precedes faith.  What do you think?

     

  46. Beloved
    Oooohhhhh boy, you like to live dangerously. Does regeneration preceded faith? Opinions out there. Readers? Calvinists say yes, Arminians say no and most people are unsure, in my opinion.

  47. I do not think praying the Sinner's Prayer is necessarily superstitious. I agree with others about the need to define "Biblical." A certain crowd really loves throwing that word around; their definition of "Biblical" seems to be (as stated by others) 'my interpretation of the Bible.' Or, perhaps 'whatever John Piper says.' They should just use the term "Piper approved," but I guess that wouldn't be "Biblical."

    A girl I know (who falls into this camp) was angry last night because someone on Facebook cited a news article and declared "we will end human trafficking in our lifetime." The article covered the largest bust in the U.S. yet which allegedly freed 79 people from sex slavery. Rather than being happy about this fact, she proceeded to compare the Fb post to God-less, Tower of Babel type thinking. We have no idea where the Fb posting girl's heart was at in this post. We both agree that human slavery probably will not end in our lifetime (she cites Revelation 18 as proof); we argued on principle. She said that she was going to bring "clarity and sober-mindedness."  It was incredibly condescending and not loving. At my objection she defended her decision by stating how "un-Biblical" the Fb poster was.  This story is so paralell because the attitudes and the condescention in this movement (which is difficult to define) is so uniform.

  48. Dee and Deb:

    I am of reformed faith alright.  However, this new crowd of Cavinists, -what do you call them? I forget – bother me in that they come across as if they have a direct hot line to heaven, they are very definite about their teaching, their way is THE WAY and everybody else is off-base unless one accepts their teaching.  I find this attitude off-putting, and prideful.  In this crowd are some pastors, group leaders who are still very young, yet they speak with such authority and finality that makes me wary of their talks.

    God has zillion ways to save a soul, He is not limited by any human means or what some preachers may say.

    Personally I believe God regenerated me by the agency of the Holy Spirit through the Word preached to me at that time and enabled me to believe the gospel.  It's altogether a gift from Him.  I am saved by God's grace through faith in Christ.  Faith is a gift of God to me.

  49. I am one who holds to the Doctrines of Grace and have used a version of the sinner's prayer many times both in services and with individuals. However, I have been dishearted to see some decisions never demonstrate fruit. The fact is it does not matter what you say as long as the heart has been regenerated or "opened" by God.(Acts 16:14.). It is only then a person can respond and call upon the name of the Lord. Paul's prayer in his conversion demonstrated that heart change when he simply said, "Lord, what would you have me do?"

  50. I don't think the problem is the "sinner's prayer" per se but any manipulation or hard-sell that goes with it.  And yet God moves in mysterious ways.  Dee's conversion was different from mine but I wouldn't say she's not a Christian because of that.  I agree also that in some cases people are converted suddenly, but in other cases it's a process until suddenly the person finds that (by the grace of God) they do believe.

  51. I haven't read all the comments yet but this reminded me of something I saw on Jeff Bethke's site a while ago.  He's the guy who did the Jesus>religion videos.  He's inspired a lot of kids around here.  He's a Mars Hill guy. 

    http://jeffbethke.com/why-jesus-doesnt-want-you-to-ask-him-into-your-heart/

    As you can see at the end, he also links to the clip of Platt. I understand the heart of the argument, the desire to see authenticity.  But, I had a definite life changing experience when I prayed the "Sinners Prayer" and I remember as a young teen watching Billy Graham lead thousands of people in that prayer.  Who can know the heart of anyone but God?  And the Holy Spirit can use whatever pleases Him to draw people to Him.

    I am depressed to think that millions of people in Platt's and Bethke's mind are "condemned".  Wow.  That is quite an arrogant assumption to make.  How can they possibly know that?  Of course in a crowd of people saying the sinner's prayer it is likely that some will just be reacting to emotionalism.  But some will experience something real that will change their llife. 

     

  52. I just don't understand the whole notion behind "Did it 'take' or didn't it?"

    Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems very superstitious to me – as if the words themselves have some kind of "magical" effectiveness, as if they're the catalyst in a chemical reaction.

    But then, altar calls have always mystified me, too. 

     

     

  53.  

    Thanks to Barry, who said what I was going to say!

    Dr. Platt is my pastor, and I encourage everybody to read what he has said, in its entirety, and within context, because the Christianity Today article has really muddied the water.

    We are struggling with stuff that goes back at least as far as Charles Finney and the Second Great Awakening; you might find the following articles to be a helpful starting point:

    The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney

  54. Rich and Barry,

    Thanks for commenting and providing those links. If you check around our website about David Platt, you will find some “complimentary” posts, not to be confused with “complementary”.

    Words are extremely important, and do hope Platt will choose less inflammatory terms in the future.

  55. Baptists have rejected the sacraments.  Therefore, they have no objective means of assurance.  The SP is a weak attempt to give sinners assurance (I remember praying a prayer so I know I'm saved).   Unlike the true sacraments, the SP is subjective (how can you know if you were sincere) and has no scriptural promise given with it.  

  56. I won't be surprised if one day one of these bull-horn Calvinistas decides Christians should all pull their right pant leg on first and then the left, with the salvation of anyone who doesn't, suspect.

    — Irish

    Thus you see the wisdom as to why Jesus is never physically described.  (Could you imagine if the Gospels desribed Christ as pulling one "one leg then the other"?  It'd be Holy War between the Right-Leg-Firsters and the Left-Leg-Firsters, to the Death.  Gulliver's Travels and which end to crack an egg. 

    "It Is Written! It Is Written! It Is Written!"

    And there's historical precedent.  There was a Russian sect called Old Believers who were butchered in some splatter-movie-worthy ways because they made the Sign of the Cross with a different arrangement of fingers than the Official Russian Orthodox Way, and strict Islam requires men to wear beards just like Mohammed (which the Taliban enforced under pain of death), and once I heard the reallly strict Muslims have to sleep on their right side with their hand pillowing their head as that was how Mohammed was once described as sleeping.

     

  57. Platt was only echoing what Paul Washer said 6 years ago. So Platt needs to say who in the SBC is manipulating people with the sinners prayer. Vague accusations are manipulative, too.

  58. Rich
    I am well aware of the controversy surrounding Finney and decisionism. I have also read extensively on the Second Great Awakening, a well as the First and am currently finishing a book on the rise of the charismatic movement in the 1970s. I love church history and have developed and taught a course on it.
    However, even though some decry the method, even within Finney’s venue people can come to know the Lord. We must be careful not to limit how the Lord would choose to move in His people. Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  59. Barry
    I think your beef should be with Christianity Today. They are known to be a reliable source. Perhaps they will print a retraction if they misquoted him?

  60. Anon1
    I agree. There are people who manipulate and people who do not. A blanket accusation is unfair.

  61. Ross
    Can you explain to us your view on the sacraments? Also, please let us know what denomination or faith to which you subscribe. Your comment was interesting.

  62. John

    I can assure you that there are many Calvinists who are sold on the doctrines of election and think they are saved, who are not saved. There are the unsaved in any gathering of Christians. All groups can have those who are deceived. I will be writing a story about pedophilia in the church in a couple of days that well proves that deception comes in many forms.

  63. "Baptists have rejected the sacraments. Therefore, they have no objective means of assurance."

    Sheesh.
    What tripe!

  64. When I used that "phrase-ology" more, two of my children were never asked if they wanted to pray "the prayer," but all on their own (besides us talking about Jesus and wanting to be a part of His family) came to me one day and told me they had asked Him.  Which took me off guard.  My third just tells me that they love Jesus.  It will be interesting to see their perspective on it when they all grow up!

  65. I, on the otherhand, never prayed "the prayer."  I just wanted to be the person that God wanted me to be.  The desire was overwhelming, and the Bible got real personal, when it didn't make sense before that.  Now, it doesn't always makes sense to me, and I always "fail" short of who I could be, but never am I without hope and awe.

  66. I have a certain sympathy with Platt here.  The point seems to me that the lives should be transformed (and through this transformation, transform the world around them so that it resembles more the Kingdom of God – this is I think what James is on about in "faith without works is dead").  The Sinners prayer – which is something I grew up with in a very reformed upbriging in the UK can be the start of that or it can be nothing more than a heavenly insurance policy.

    The question seems to me to be rather more that preaching/theology  that centres only on the moment of the start of the Christian life and never gets beyond it is the danger here and what I read Platt as attacking here – and rightly so.  Such a theology seems to me to only lead to one of three things.  Insufferably smug and mindless self righteousness (which never allows growth or glory to God); apostacy amongst the intelligent who  work out that there has to be more to it than this; or the sort of legalism which "moves on" to create tests of faith around B, C and Z issues (which you rightly write against regularly here).

    Being new to all this church politics stuff I really can't comment further than that, and clearly if this becomes a tool to start judging people its a bad thing, but at face value, I think this is a helpful intejection.

  67. I’m former SBC now LCMS. My understanding of the sacraments is found in the Augsburg Confession.

  68. Anon 1,

    Thanks for bringing Paul Washer to my attention. You are absolutely right! He “declared war” on the Sinner’s Prayer three years ago.

    Paul Washer – War on the Sinner’s Prayer

    I didn’t know much about Paul Washer until the documentary Divided came out. Here’s what he had to say.

    Paul Washer, Clip from the Divided Movie

    Here is some background on the movie Divided: “Divided” Lives Up to Its Name

    And here is my review, which I saw numerous times in preparation for my post: Divided – A Review

    Around the same time that Paul Washer declared war on the Sinners Prayer, he spoke at a National Center for Family Integrated Churches (NCFIC) conference with Doug Phillips, Scott Brown, Voddie Baucham, Ken Ham, among others.

    http://www.ncfic.org/national-conference

    If David Platt is being influenced by the likes of these men, WATCH OUT!

  69. @ Deb:

    I'm pretty sure Paul Washer has declared war on just about everything at one point or another.  : )  He's been around in anti-Emergent Church circles for years.  I only found out recently how deeply involved he is with Vision Forum and NCFIC.  Paul Dohse thinks he's a Neo-Calvinist (links below).  Frankly, though, I didn't need to know that, because anybody who'd appear on a Vision Forum "documentary" (read:  propaganda film) is not trustworthy, plain and simple.

     

    http://paulspassingthoughts.com/2012/06/09/g3-baucham-washer-lawson-a-gathering-of-calvins-spiritual-despots/

    http://paulspassingthoughts.com/2011/03/18/no-no-no-paul-washer-doesn’t-think-your-lost-because-of-that-he-thinks-your-lost-because-you’re-an-evangelical/

  70. I agree with David. Living here in the "Bible Belt" I have met dozens who believe they are saved simply because they went through the motions and mouthed a prayer. Many men have done it simply to get the wife off their back. Others, because they were pressured by "death bed" stories or manipulated by emotion. The problem is that there has been no life change. Real repentance brings about regeneration – new life. No new life, no regeneration. Often "coming to Christ" is peddled as some kind of add-on to life here on Earth when the opposite is true. We are citizens of a Heavenly Kingdom, just visiting here until our Savior takes us to His Father's house.

    One the other hand, I do believe that some kind of prayer of repentance is necessary. I prayed with a couple of friends and the next night went to church and responded to the alter call.

    The problem as I see it is easy believism. Come forward, mouth a prayer, join the church and tithe your 10% and Your in!

    Real repentance involves:

    1. Genuine Sorrow – 2 Corinthians 7:9-10, Matthew 5:3-4

    2. Forsaking Sin – Matthew 3:8, Acts 26:20, Hebrews 6:1

    3. Surrendering to the will of God – Acts 9:6, Romans 12:12

    Life change is possible in Christ. Apart from Him, it is impossible. Pastors, let's make sure we preach the whole Gospel.

  71. Ross
    You are a member of The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod (LCMS). I attended a Missouri Synod Church in upstate New York while I was in college.It was the first church that I attended in any serious way after my rather unique conversion. I loved the liturgy and the pastor gave excellent sermons. However, since I was college student, I didn’t get involved in church beliefs and doctrines. Could you pleaes tell me what the view is of the sacraments as it relates to salvation?

  72. Deb,

    You can find the Book of Concord online at:

    bookofconcord.org

    Also, there is an excellent new reader's edition out now:

    http://www.cph.org

    I would encourage you to investigate Lutheran doctrine for yourself.  After reading the BoC, I couldn't find any disagreement with Scripture.  The biggest hurdles for me as a baptist were the sacraments.  Once I understood the scriptural basis for them, it was like finding an oasis in the desert.

     

    Also, this paper by Phillip Carey does a good job explaining the difference between the sacramental and non-sacramental understandings of Sola Fide:

    http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/carysolafide.pdf

  73. randall,

    "Genuine Sorrow" – How do I know if my sorrow is genuine?

    "Forsaking Sin" – What if I'm still a sinner?

    "Surrendering to the will of God" – What does this mean?

     

    You would have the sinner look at themslef (their "life change") to determine whether or not he/she is forgiven.  This will lead to despair or unbelief because they are still sinners.  The sinner must be pointed outside of themself to Christ's work for them on the Cross to know they are forgiven.

  74. randall,

    "Genuine Sorrow" – How do I know if my sorrow is genuine?

    "Forsaking Sin" – What if I'm still a sinner?

    "Surrendering to the will of God" – What does this mean?

    Buzzword Bingo or Christianese Duckspeak.

    And all too often it comes down to Christianese One-Upmanship:

    "My Sorrow was Genuine, Yours WAS NOT!"

    All too often the Absolute Proof of Salvation becomes "Whatever *I* have that YOU DON'T" and the Unpardonable Sin "Whatevef YOU do that *I* DON'T".  And this is nothing new:

    "I THANK THEE, LORD, THAT I AM NOTHING LIKE THAT FILTHY PUBLICAN OVER THERE…"


  75. "How do you know your sins have been forgiven?"

    Enlighten me, please.

    "How do you know…" was also the opener of a very underhanded infinite-regression Witnessing (TM) tactic I experienced in my early college days.  It went like this:

    "How do you KNOW your sins have been forgiven/where you will spend Eternity/etc…"

    And whatever the mark answers, you regress it back to him.  Reason X?  "But How do you KNOW Reason X?"  Respond with Reason Y — "But How do you KNOW Reason Y?" in an Infinite Regression until you have broken the mark's faith completely; then you pull out your Bible/Roman Road/Four Spiritual Laws, sell him the Fire Insurance all over again, and get brownie points on your sales record.  I became a notch on half a dozen Bibles this way.

    Internet Monk descibed what had to be the same approach as "Are You SURE?  Are You CERTAIN You're SURE??  Are You SURE You're CERTAIN You're SURE???"

  76. HUG,

    I'm not trying an infinte-regression Witnessing (TM) tactic.  I'm trying to make a point that, apart from the sacraments, there is no basis for knowing for sure that you're certain you're sure….

    How do I know my sins are forgiven?  Because God baptized me and says in His Word that I have been buried with Christ through baptism.  My baptism was outside of me and not dependent on my sincerity.  So now, instead of asking questions about myself to judge whether or not I'm forgiven, I am left asking about God.  Does God lie?  Are His promises true?  Did God really say?  Big difference.

  77. Ross:

    I do not see an end to your questioning process.  Is there an end, or is one left being uncertain about his or her salvation?

     

  78. To go back to Dr Platt, I see an insidious conspiracy of uncertainty behind the war on the sinner’s prayer. “You’ve confessed Christ, and you’ve been baptized, but God might still be your wrathful judge (and there’s nothing you can do about it).” Or to give hyper-Arminians equal time– “You’ve confessed Christ, and you’ve been baptized, but you might not have done it the right way, or you still might fall away, so you might need to do it all again and again.”

  79. Just so you know, I agree with most of what Platt said in the clip, and often use the same method of “where is that in the Bible?” But this method is a two-edged sword. For example, I notice Dr Platt speaks at conferences. Also that he’s a “Senior Pastor”.

  80. Ross,
    Although I take a Lutheran view of baptism and communion to a large extent (preferring baptism for believers), I get hung up on the term “sacrament”, which in my non-Latin Bible is usually translated “mystery” and applied to things other than those two. HUG’s church has 5 more sacraments, I believe, than Lutherans. One can can perhaps make a point for marriage, as an example, from 5:32 Sacramentum hoc magnum est ego autem dico in Christo et in ecclesia.
    I think a more confessional or liturgical view of “sinners prayers” is well warranted from scripture, where we se a number of “sinners prayers” offered on behalf of a whole nation or congregation– corporate rather than individualistic.

  81. I was saved praying "the sinner's prayer" or some such version and am still saved.

     

    But heaven help me I've had quite enough of all this works salvation stuff from the calvinista's who should really know so much better.

     

    It isn't the quality of my faith, it is the quality of my God.

     

    It isn't do I do enough or try hard enough or am I changed enough, it is that His blood is enough.

     

    I'm so happy to be in a Lutheran church that is totally Christ centered.  Our brief order of confession and forgiveness is pretty much the sinner's prayer, and we do it weekly.  For some of us it is a reminder that we can never earn heaven.  For others it is the first time to realize it.

     

    We have an "altar call" also, when the Table of the Lord is offered.  I've watched folks who were Christian by culture but not by experience of Christ go forward and watched as the Holy Spirit moved, watched them come weeping and practically dancing from the Table.  They don't use the term "I got saved" but my word such changed lives and hearts and such peace!

     

    Thanks be to God!

  82. linda,

    Good points. 

    The difference between the sinner's prayer and confession in the divine service is that there is no absolution given to the sinner in the former.  The SP is completely one sided with no Word of forgiveness from Christ.  The sinner is left making confession, vows, decisions but never hears that they are forgiven.

     

    The altar call vs. communion is similar.  In the altar call, the sinner comes to give something to God.  The sinner is active and God is passive.  In communion, the sinner recieves the body and blood of Christ for forgiveness of sins.  There is no mistaking that the gospel is FOR YOU when you recieve His very body and blood.

  83. IMO, it's not that the "sinner's prayer" has heretical content and should not be prayed ever, it's what is done with it that is the problem.  When revivalists say, "pray this prayer, and your sins will be forgiven," people go home thinking that "I am a Christian because I prayed that prayer."  Essentialy, this is voodoo, because it claims that the right spoken verbal formula guarantees the desired spiritual result.  Saying a prayer doesn't make you a Christian, it is the fruit of faith that has already been given you through the hearing of the preached gospel.

    The SBC, however, will NEVER rid themselves of this plague of "decision theology," because they reject baptismal regeneration.  If we are not "born form above" when we are baptized, then we must be "born again" when we raise our hand, pray the prayer, make the decision, walk the aisle, or some similar modern ritual that essentially boils down to OUR work.  So what if Platt recognizes that "invite Jesus into your heart" is not in the Bible.  Is he really gonna take a good look at and accept what is?  When Peter was asked, "What shall we to do be saved?" his response was:  "Repent and be baptized."  It's not rocket science, but it doesn't jive with the rationalistic sensibilities of post-enlightenment existentialists who would rather turn to a crisis event for their assurance.  

    If you reject Baptism as the entrance into the church, you will simply replace it with a made up ritual.  The "sinner's prayer" is about as good or bad as any other baptismal substitute.  At least it teaches that we are sinners, Christ died for us, and we need his death to pay our debt.

  84. Dee, Ross is referring you to the book of concord for an understanding of Lutheran doctrine, but I suggest that may be a huge bite to swallow.  Start with Luther's small catechism, it is a great, concise summary of Lutheran belief.

  85. <a href=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/smallcat.html</a>Small Cathechism here</a>.  (I deliberately chose a website that isn't sponsored by any of the Lutheran bodies here in the US.)

    fwiw, I was raised LCA, which is now part of the ELCA (Evan. Luth. Church of America). So my take on some LCMS interpretations of the founding documents of Lutheranism is a bit different… though very much the same, in most regards. (Please forgive the Lutheran geek-girl-ness of this post! ;))

  86. "My baptism was outside of me and not dependent on my sincerity."

    Right.

    So some unseen hand forced your body through the motions? I am not trying to be facetious, but all this religion-speak gets to me. You have not explained anything that "proves" you are "saved" or one of the "elect" any more than a good ol' Baptist preacher or a Calvinista reading from the ESV. You just gave your version of what works for you, based upon extra-biblical writings/creeds.

  87. Different people have different beliefs about prayer, salvation, and The Good News of Jesus Christ.  I say let freedom ring with each person calling on The Almighty according to the dictates of his or her own conscience.

  88. MIguel,

    I agree that the BoC may be a bit overwhelming and its not an easy read.  The Small Catechism is a good starting point.

    Clarification for anyone reading through these comments – The BoC is made up of many documents including the Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism.  So its not one or the other.  The great thing is you can easily find all of this online and find out what Lutherans believe, teach and confess.  Then you can decide whether or not you agree.

  89. Different people have different beliefs about prayer, salvation, and The Good News of Jesus Christ.  I say let freedom ring with each person calling on The Almighty according to the dictates of his or her own conscience.

    Amen, Muff!

    I'm also kind of amused by the idea of almighty God not responding unless a prayer is worded "just right." Seems pretty silly, no? 😉

     

     

  90. OK… now I'm having difficulty getting the rich-text editing functions to work for me.

    Good grief! (Sorry, GBCH – not frustrated with you, but with the whole HTML coding thing.)

  91. TedS.,

    Yes.  In my case, I was baptized as an infant so the pastor did "force my body through the motions".  He also spoke God's Word as he baptized me in the triune name of God.  But it was GOD's Word, not man's.  The same Word that created ex nihilo.

    I don't care if I'm elect.  I'm baptized.

    Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

    For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

  92. Ross – I was baptized as an infant and raised LCA (Lutheran Church in America). For me, it was very important to *decide* to follow Christ – and my mom, now 88, had a similar turning point while in her teens, after listening to one of her LCA pastor's sermons.

    I don't think that infant baptism is – in itself – a guarantee of how a person will live their life, and I think that's why some liturgical churches (Roman Catholic, for one), have prayers for adult renewal of baptismal vows.

    I would be thrilled to see that done in Lutheran congregations – and perhaps some do it already? (I really don't know.)

    Either way, I do not think there is some kind of "magic" formula, ritual, what have you. (Cue Bob Dylan's "Gotta Serve Somebody.")

     

     

     

  93. So what happens in this situation:

     

    Joe has never been to church before in his life and knows nothing about Jesus, the Bible, etc.  One night his Christian friend convinces him to come to a service, where Joe is converted and truly believes on Christ.  Joe arranges with the pastor to be baptized the next morning in a nearby river.  The next morning, as Joe is walking to the river, a truck veers off the road and hits him, killing him instantly.

     

    Did Joe go to heaven or hell?

  94. Hester
    That is easy-he goes to heaven. Just like the theif on the cross with Jesus.
    “Today you will be with Me in paradise.”

  95. Hester
    That is easy-he goes to heaven. Just like the thief on the cross with Jesus.
    “Today you will be with Me in paradise.”

  96. RE: numo @ Wed June 27, 2012 at 04:02 PM,

     

    I too find it rather silly that The Almighty (El Shaddai), who is bigger than 15 billion years of light travel and yet smaller than the particles that the whiz kids at CERN conjure up with Mathematics & huge magnets, worries about words & trappings.

     

    Me thinks He is far more concerned with the state of the heart [transl. from the Hebrew "bowels"].

  97. Muff,
    CERN may take away our houses or lands, it may take away our planet, but it can never take away our bowels! (from English “hearts) My CERN fears are thereby mitigated.

  98. Hester,

    I agree with dee.  Easy.  Heaven.

    Here's a harder one:

    A sinner professes faith in Christ and asks Jesus into his heart.  He is taught about Christ's scriptural promises given in baptism.  He decides that he doesn't believe those promises and rejects Christian baptism.  Forty years later on his death bed he maintains that he asked Jesus into his heart as a teenager but still doesn't believe God's promises and rejects baptism.  Does he go to heaven or hell?

     

    MP,

    "Me thinks He is far more concerned with the state of the heart"

    This is bad news.

     

  99. @ Ross:

     

    1.  If the man in your scenario has rejected Christ, then hell.  Baptism disconnected from faith is worthless.

     

    2.  If the man in your scenario has rejected only a particular view of baptism, then it depends on whether he has genuine faith in Christ.  Baptism is a non-salvation issue and one's views on its particulars will not send anyone to heaven or hell.

     

    "Everything, then, depends on this faith, which alone makes the sacraments accomplish that which they signify, and everything the priest says comes true.  For as you believe, so it is done for you.  Without this faith all absolution and all sacraments are in vain and indeed do more harm than good.  There is a common saying among the teachers that goes like this:  Not the sacrament, but the faith that believes the sacrament is what removes sin.  St. Augustine says this:  The sacrament removes sin, not because it takes place, but because it is believed.  For this reason in the sacrament one must studiously discern faith."

  100. Addendum @ Ross:
     

    I once heard a Lutheran pastor's son, when faced with Joe's scenario, tell me that Joe went to hell.

  101. Hester: what synod did that guy belong to? Sounds like either Wisconsin Synod or hard-line MO Synod. (I know; it's trivia, but it really does make a difference. There are many types of Lutherans.)

     

  102. 

    "The problem as I see it is easy believism. Come forward, mouth a prayer, join the church and tithe your 10% and Your in!"

    Randall, I think if we delve into Calvinism and what it really teaches, it is also "easy believism".

  103. "Just so you know, I agree with most of what Platt said in the clip, and often use the same method of “where is that in the Bible?” But this method is a two-edged sword. For example, I notice Dr Platt speaks at conferences. Also that he’s a “Senior Pastor"

     

    Bingo!

     

    I am glad others mentioned the thief on the cross as to baptism. Should we be baptized? YES! But it is not some formula for salvation. Jesus' first sermon was repent and believe.

  104. I haven't read all the comments, so I might be repeating someone.

    I have 2 problems with TSP:  1) It concentrates more on what WE must do than on what God has done for us.  2) I think a prayer as important as this should be as personal as possible, except maybe for the youngest children.  A rote prayer can never be as meaningful to us as one that we put in our own words.  Of course, The Lord's Prayer is an exception, since Jesus told us to copy it, and it would seem to be very difficult to improve on it.

     

  105. Barry and Rich,

    I have never heard of David Platt but I took the time to read his 11-page sermon on the "spiritual deception, biblical conversion and global mission" on 6/18/12 at the SBC conference.  I appreciate what David Platt had to say.

    I only hope David Platt and many other preachers would live a life that reflect the gospel of Christ.  I have not seen it in reality among many preachers I know for many years.  Talk, sermon, speech are easy to make; to walk the talk is another different matter.

     

     

  106. @ Numo:

     

    He was LCMS but the church would certainly not qualify as hardline.  Probably he misunderstood something in confirmation class.  (I've never actually spoken to a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran but everything I've read by or about them has been really scary.)

  107. @ Hester – I hear you about confirmation classes; I skipped most of mine. 😉

    And I think it's all too easy for misunderstandings to be communicated in that kind of setting, partially because teenagers and adults have a tendency to misread each other. I know that I was frustrated by the answers I heard in the confirmation classes that I did go to, but some of that was probably my distrust of adults with Answers. (What I thought of as Easy Answers; it might also have been that the questions being posed were difficult ones, though that was a long time ago and I truly don't remember.)

     

  108.  

    Ross said: You would have the sinner look at themslef (their "life change") to determine whether or not he/she is forgiven.  This will lead to despair or unbelief because they are still sinners.  

    Actually, I would have them look at the work of God in their lives. Everyone of the Apostles lives were transformed by the power of God. Everyone of them went to their deaths (considere Peter before) except John. Domitian tried to boil him in oil, but he wouldn't quit. Banished to Patmos, he received the Revelation their. Consider countless mayrters who went to their death for thier faith after living pagan lives, refusing to deny Jesus. Modern day, consider Frank Morrison, A.W. Tozer, Chuck Swindoll, Josh McDowell and others. When I see myself no longer doing those things that held me in bondage, I see the work of God in my life and I have hope.

     

    Headless Unicorn Guy said: randall,

    "Genuine Sorrow" – How do I know if my sorrow is genuine?

    "Forsaking Sin" – What if I'm still a sinner?

    "Surrendering to the will of God" – What does this mean?

    Buzzword Bingo or Christianese Duckspeak.

    I am wondering if you actutally read the Scriptures I referenced? The answer to your questions is there. "Buzzword Bingo or Christianese Duckspeak" sounds a lot like buzzwords to me…

     

    Anon 1 said: "Randall, I think if we delve into Calvinism and what it really teaches, it is also "easy believism".

    I am not a Calvinist nor will I ever be one. Calivinism makes God a monster. Nor am I an Ariminanist which makes man dependant upon himself.

    How do I know that I am saved? "He who has the Son has life; He who does not have the Son does not have life." 1 John 5:12

    Do I still struggle with sin? Yes, we all do. John wrote, "He who is born of God does not commit sin…" (1 John 3:9) If you will examine the passage, the word "commit" is the greek word "practice." It is sin as habitiual. The person who deliberately continues in sin after being "Born Again."

    Surrendering to the will of God? Read Matthew 26:36-44

    Some of you sound very angry. I wonder how you justifiy that with your faith?

  109. @ Numo:

     

    I am actually LCMS and that was MY pastor's son.  I like to pose Joe's scenario in Lutheran churches because the answers are always so revealing.  Every other kid in the class said "heaven" (albeit in an uncertain tone), the elder hemmed and hawed, and the pastor's kid said "hell."

     

    I went through confirmation in a pretty liberal ELCA church and yeah, my classes were pretty lame.  Most of the kids weren't asking good questions and even if they did, the answers they got were kinda fluffy.  And things went unaddressed by the teachers, like the time one kid said you could be Wiccan and Christian at the same time if you believed that God was female (?!).  And the worst part?  It was a THREE-YEAR confirmation program…

  110. Hester – I think that many people who teach confirmation classes would be better off not doing so, if you get my drift. 😉

  111. @ Dave A A:

    Let's hope the whiz kids at CERN don't set off an uncontrollable fold-space condition and cause a big chunk of Geneva to disappear and emerge 100 or so parsecs from here (yikes!)  And while we're at it, let's also hope that "genetic engineers" don't wind up like poor Mickey as the sorcerer's apprentice in the old Disney production of "Fantasia".

  112. “Anon 1 said: "Randall, I think if we delve into Calvinism and what it really teaches, it is also "easy believism".

    I am not a Calvinist nor will I ever be one. Calivinism makes God a monster. Nor am I an Ariminanist which makes man dependant upon himself.”

    Sorry Randall, I think I should have been more clear. Platt is worried about easy believism with a sinner’s prayer and I was stating that I think Calvinism is really easy believism when we take the time to really look at what it is teaching. Platt is a New Calvinist.

    “How do I know that I am saved? "He who has the Son has life; He who does not have the Son does not have life." 1 John 5:12

    Do I still struggle with sin? Yes, we all do. John wrote, "He who is born of God does not commit sin…" (1 John 3:9) If you will examine the passage, the word "commit" is the greek word "practice." It is sin as habitiual. The person who deliberately continues in sin after being "Born Again."”

    A big fat THANK YOU! Rarely do I find people who get this. Most stop at 1 John 1 to excuse practicing sin because some so proudly announce “we are all sinners!” not understanding that being born again should mean we do not “practice” sin. I think 1 John 1 and “walking in the light” is misunderstood by many. Now, of course, many Christian leaders are redefining sin  to be such things as ‘’questioning your leaders”  but lording it over others in the body is not a sin because “God appointed them”. Lots of educating of the pew sitters to be done because of so much bad teaching in order to control.

     

    “Some of you sound very angry. I wonder how you justifiy that with your faith?”

    Not sure what you are aiming for here or who is guilty of “sounding angry”. And I am not sure it is a bad thing for folks to be angry when pastors use vague accusations to paint another side not saved. Perhaps you are not aware of situation in the SBC right now with even the president of SBTS suggesting other SBC seminary presidents are heretics or leaning toward heresy.

    Platt was simply joining in the fun to paint non Calvinists as into cheap easy believism. Some Platt followers might want to check out what a couple who was featured in his book, Radical, had to say about living up to Platt’s teachings in a blog comment no less.

    http://jamaljivanjee.com/category/book-reviews/radical-by-david-platt/

     

    Anyway, spiritual abuse, deception and wolf behavior should make us angry in a righteous sense. It certainly should not cheer us. Some folks deal with it using sarcasm and if that is wrong when people are being led astray, then St. Paul is very guilty.

  113. Do most people not use decent study Bibles?

    Seriously… good annotation clears up so many problematic issues re. translation and more. I started with an RSV study Bible (Harper's) back in the early 70s, and while I don't like being distracted by footnotes, they are pretty darned handy to have around.

     

     

  114. P.S.: I still have the harper's Study Bible (RSV) that I bought in '74 or so. It has survived many difficulties (including a thorough – and inadvertent – soaking while I was waiting for a bus to take me down the mountain from Swiss L'Abri) and even though its binding has seen better days, I'm awfully fond of it and would never want to get rid of it.

     

     

  115. P.P.S.: the Bible was in my luggage, which was soft-sided… and I had to stand by the side of a country road in the middle of a rainstorm, waiting for the bus.

    That Bible has quality paper and binding, and survived the rain beautifully, though I was pretty distraught when I saw what had happened to it.

     

  116. The best tool is a good set of commentaries.  Be sure to investigate the theological and ecclesiological leanings of the editors and writers, and understand that they will have their own approach.  Check out whether they present more than one view of a passage and explain the strengths and weaknesses of each point of view.  Justs as translators have biases, so do commentary writers.

    One of the problems with some translations and study bibles is that, where there are multiple possible meanings of a term or phrase, they do not show the alternatives.  Another is that some resolve multiple possible meanings by defaulting to something consistent with the KJV, which was a very politically driven translation supporting divine right of kings, obedience to authority, etc., and a hierarchical church.  There are multiple current issues — headship, head covering, patriarchy, "submission" (a mistranslation), etc., that are based in the KJV mistranslations.

  117. Anonymous 1: I read your comment and believe you do not have all the facts or at least are not giving all the facts as I believe you to be wrong in what you are saying. I also think that the document to which the charges are being leveled against be read. I am not going to get into this latest fight because there are always going to be some who want to fight. But I do think it is important to tell the truth about the facts which I do not see you doing. As Christians truth should be the one thing we do even if we disagree.

     

    http://sbctoday.com/2012/05/30/an-introduction-to-%E2%80%9Ca-statement-of-the-traditional-southern-baptist-understanding-of-god%E2%80%99s-plan-of-salvation%E2%80%9D/

     

    In question and I believe rightfully so is article II.

  118. HI Debbie, The entire discussion is about "whose truth" of interpretation and whose truth about "facts". So I am not surprised you claim I did not tell the truth that is pretty much how the entire discussion is firming up. And Al Mohler did not say that his learned colleagues did not know what they were signing. You mean those facts? :o) I won't speak of it anymore as I know you are friends with the TWW bloggers and I would not expect them to allow me to defend myself from Wade's church member accusing me of lying when we simply disagree.

  119. Hello everyone! It has been some time since I have posted on here, but I have been following along on many of the conversations since Wartburg has come back online (A bit late–but Welcome Back Dee/Deb and Others) I have followed along on this particular debate not only on here, but elsewhere as well. I have had great hesitation to join in on this particular conversation, but after chewing on all of this I decided to go ahead and jump in.

    Just a few things off the bat: I have been a part of the SBC pretty much my whole life, within the Bible Belt in the DEEP South, and I can seriously appreciate where David Platt is coming from in all of this. I have a lot I can say about the Sinners Prayer–including some personal stories involving my own coming to Christ that somewhat relates to this prayer and altar calls—but for now I want to simply say that I think Platt has got this one right…and I am not seeing any type of Calvinist vs Non-Calvinist war in any of this… I believe Platt when he says: "my comments about the “sinner’s prayer” have been deeply motivated by a concern for authentic conversion and regenerate church membership—doctrines which many Calvinists and non-Calvinists, as well as a variety of Christians in between, would rightly value." (Pulled from this link: http://www.radical.net/blog/) I don't know about yall, but I have seen the "pandemic deception", "easy believism" and other issues that he is referring too…and I DONT think this is any Calvinista smear tactic against those who don't hold to the doctrine of Calvinism.

    I live about 3 hours max from Platt's church, so it is not a stretch to imagine the problems I have seen he has seen. Here is a true scenario that has played out time and time again in many churches, events, etc—but this is a good example of the type of "easy belief" and "deception" I think Platt is referring to in full relation to the Sinners Prayer. I mentioned on here before I work in the school system..and in my hometown, the local schools allow ministers to come in and give a short devotional from the Bible for the kids. At our local middle school, we may have hundreds of kids in the gym on Wednesday mornings..and I was able to monitor the students one morning along with other teachers as a local pastor shared the devotion. This devotion was on bullying primarily—-using Jesus' teaching on "turning the other cheek"…love your enemies…etc. Long story short, the pastor never explained the Good News of Christ, but he DID ask everyone to bow their heads and raise their hands if they wanted to get saved at the end of the devotion. Of course, tons of kids shot their hands up..in excess of 20 or so…and the Pastor said the infamous words—if you want to be saved, repeat this prayer after me: No Gospel–but a prayer of "salvation" without fully explaining what Jesus has done for us and why!

    Afterwards, the Kids returned to their classrooms, and there was no follow up…no more conversation. Could God use something like this to draw people to Himself? Of course! But I think it is fair to say that the enemy could use something like this to disillusion children into thinking they were saved based on the "magic words" of a prayer and the encouragement of the pastor who says "if you prayed this prayer, you are certainly saved"….NO wonder there are so many "rebaptisms" in our area for those who genuinely come to Christ later on!! (Talk about getting angry about something—the latter gets me a bit angry.)

    The sad truth is—I have seen this played out time and time and time again where I live (as I am sure many on here have as well)…. I think Platt is making a "vague accusation" because this problem plays itself like this over and over in the Bible Belt—This is not for one particular leader or pastor—but a plethora of Bible Belt Christians, pastors, etc.. Many times, Instead of people hearing the Gospel for their Salvation…they are instructed to say a prayer for their salvation.

    I know this doesn't happen all the time..but it does happen. Platt himself says that many in his church who come to Christ ackowledge they thought they were saved before although they were never were told the Gospel but instead were taught to pray a prayer and are then Baptised because they "got saved"…. I have heard people in my own life ackowledge this myself.

    In the end..Platt voted for the resolution that affirms the Sinners Prayer, which tells me that Platt is not against someone responding with a prayer of faith to Christ if they are repentant/believe in Christ (no matter how weird I "invite Jesus into your heart sounds") This ultimately tells me that Platt is not against the prayer per se…but how people use this prayer, and the lack of wisdom people have in leading people to Christ. It is truly a hanting thought to know many may fit the category of Matthew 7:21 because they were led to depend on a words in a prayer for their salvation (along with church going, tithing, church trips, etc)— rather than Christ Himself. Sorry (again) if that was a bit long.

  120. I'm sure you would be able to disagree with me on this blog Anon1. Discussion is good. We have too little of it I think. I don't have a problem with it.  I do think you need to get a full view of what the disagreement is about.

  121. Please don't let my friendship with Deb and Dee stop anyone from speaking as they want on this blog. That friendship will stand even if there is disagreement with me. Deb, Dee and I don't agree on everything, yet there will always be a friendship with us despite disagreement.

  122. It isn't just Calvinists that are leveling this charge of semi-pelagianism, but non-Calvinists as well. It has nothing to do with Calvinism. It has everything to do with seeing what the scriptures actually say and getting away from tradition especially concerning salvation. It's just too important.

  123. Just because something is "tradition" does not make it correct.  Our tradition has it that G. Washington threw a coin across a river, which is now clearly recognized as impossible at the time and place it was alleged to have occurred.  Similarly, there are traditions in Christianity, in denominations, and in individual churches that are not the best and/or not based on truth.  Above here, someone reported about the local practice of a pastor giving a devotional in a public school setting.  That is actually contrary to law, not the talk about bullying, but the "salvation" part; it walks all over the First Amendment rights of children and their parents (including those who are Christians) who do not share the pastor's approach to salvation.  It is a bad tradition, because it misrepresents what Christianity means to many of us.

  124. Neo-Calvinism is just as bad as Hyper-Calvinism. Both make God out to be a monster.  

    As far as a Bible with decent study notes, really the problem (IMHO) is reading your Bible. If we would pray for understanding before, during, and after reading, EVERYDAY, God would cause growth in our lives. Alas, according to several polls, overwhelmingly Christians do not read their Bibles at all!

    You spend time with those you love. Enough said.  

  125. I totally agree with what David Platt said. If you truly have a relationship with Jesus Christ, that should be evident in your life. (James 2:17) We have molded modern day Christianity into what we want to hear(eisegesis) instead of what is the truth(exegesis). 

  126. Seeker

    Well stated. TWW has written a positive piece on David Platt, and I personally admire his sacrifical lifestyle from which a few pastors in the SBC could take a cue. We wrote about this because it caused a controversy. IMO Platt could have worded this portion of his talk to avoid the histrionics of hell fire and brimstone and simply, as he usually does (I have attended his church on several occasions) quietly explain his concern with easy believism.

    I have lived all over the country and, I can truthfully say that I have never met a person who erroneously believed that they were a Christian because they prayed the Sinner's Paryer. In fact, I have met many who laugh about it saying that "it didn't take". I believe that most people with a working IQ eventually think it through and decide whether they believe or not. I am not sure that there will be hoards of people marching to hell who think they are saved by a simple prayer. I think most of them know darn well that they are not dedicated to the Way of our Lord.

  127. Debbie

    Preach it ! In fact, ture friendship is present when people have diagreements on theology, politics, etc and still love being with one another.That is the unity of Christ. Debbie was instrumental in getting the Ergun Caner thing into the public view (BTW,Debbie_Tom is back to blogging and he says he has updates on Caner) and I respect and love anyone who will put up with grief to pursue the truth, even when other Christians treated her shamefully.

  128. Debbie

    It isn’t just Calvinists that are leveling this charge of semi-pelagianism, but non-Calvinists as well.

    You are correct and we plan to write about that soemtime in the coming weeks.

  129. An. Attorney

    You said 

    That is actually contrary to law, not the talk about bullying, but the “salvation” part; it walks all over the First Amendment rights of children and their parents (including those who are Christians) who do not share the pastor’s approach to salvation.  It is a bad tradition, because it misrepresents what Christianity means to many of us.

    I agree. years ago, my kids attended a Christian school which opened its doors to Catholics. They were informed that their children would be taught standard Protestant doctrine and they all understood. However, one day, through a series of miscommunications, an evangelist gave a talk at chapel and said that all Catholics are going to hell. Let me tell you, fire and brimstone erupted, not only from the Catholic families but from evangelicals who disagreed. The administration apologized and appropriate vetting was implemented. i cannot imagine this going on in a public school. Can you imagine some Wiccan telling the kids to get into paganism? Seizures would take place, evangelical leaders would denounce it all over the news. etc. 

  130. Randall

    Ditto. I do not care what translation anyone reads so long as they READ. If you follow the bible verses at the bottom of our screen, it will take you through the bible in 1 1/2 years. Just doing our part!

  131. Dee,

    I agree that there are many who think it through and realize they are not dedicated to Way of Christ. I encountered  people "use" the prayer as a cop out to get those who are asking about their faith to leave them alone, while they know full well they are not dedicated to Christ.

    But sadly, I have seen many not think anything through in my community. I am not sure why to be honest. They are involved in the trappings of cultural Christianity—but people knowing in full the price Christ paid for us, why He paid it, His victory over death in the resurrection—not to mention repentance and belief….All of this seems to be missing for many who I have encountered who believe they are saved because they walked to some altar and prayed a prayer during some church service or event.

     I think some find the prayer to be a "simple solution", an "easy fix" to the conviction they have, and many people like it just like that. They don't have to think—just repeat this prayer…and many leaders perpetuate this system by not taking the care and time to explain the Gospel.

    I do agree that God can work in spite of all this…and I have seen many who have experienced this (mostly at a younger age) come to genuine faith in Christ at a later point when they see all who Christ is and what He has done for them.

    I don't know where it went downhill, but I have seen so many leaders "lead" people to Christ similar to the scenario above….The care to show them the Gospel is just not there, and I think misunderstanding can abound.

    In order to veer away from all this, I usually approach people based on where they stand with Christ today…not "when" they got saved. It may take some time, but I try to start a conversation with them about Jesus…If they are genuinely saved, I think the conversation will be more than just "well I got baptised, walked to the front, said the prayer" when I was 12….

    Of course I would never assume they werent saved just by the latter, but that is a good launching point to really talk to this person about their faith.

     

  132. emma

    I have had this debate with many Christians and have not come to a conclusion. You say that such a conversion should be evident in the life of the person. But, what is that evidence?For some, it means to stop using drugs. But, what happens whne the addiction is so powerful that you slip?  What about the person who goes through a period of rebellion and doesnt act it for a few years? In the midst of that rebellion, it might appear that he/she is not a Christian. 

    Then, there are those who appear like Christians. This story is an example of that. If someone “acts” like a Christian, how we can we be sure that something is really going on inside? 

    Don’t get me wrong. I believe that change does come to ones life. But sometimes, we place our own thoughts on what that should look like.

  133. The Sinner's Prayer is symptomatic of a much deeper problem in the Church, which has to do with how we view God's relationship to His Law throughout time.

     

    Conversion is the result of a man or woman coming to terms with the inescapable, ever-present moral demands of God's Law, specifically dictated to Moses in the first five books of our Bibles, and the subsequent recognition that God does not overlook infractions, as we are commonly led to believe, but instead punishes them to the nth degree in Christ.  This punishment is just as necessary today as it was 4000 years ago, due to the inescapable, ever-present moral demands of God's Law.  Grace is therefore experienced when a person trusts in Christ as her/his God-provided Substitute.  In the end, God's Righteousness is upheld, while at the same time the transgressor set free.

     

    Thus, the Sinner's Prayer is the outgrowth of a Church that no longer takes God's Law serious.

  134. Doug

    I can assure you that I know many people, including my father on his death bed, who prayed the Sinner’s Prayer with all seriousness. 

  135. Doug said:

    "Conversion is the result of a man or woman coming to terms with the inescapable, ever-present moral demands of God's Law, specifically dictated to Moses in the first five books of our Bibles, and the subsequent recognition that God does not overlook infractions, as we are commonly led to believe, but instead punishes them to the nth degree in Christ.  This punishment is just as necessary today as it was 4000 years ago, due to the inescapable, ever-present moral demands of God's Law."

    Doug,

    Could you please clarify something for me?  Are you claiming that we must keep all the Old Testament laws because that appears to be what you are advocating?

     

  136. Deb,

     

    Yes.  We are fully obligated to keep the Law of God in its moral essence.  In the Law and the Prophets as Christ called them, we find God's unchanging moral expectations couched in the clothing of a specific historical setting.  It remains for us to translate them into contemporary garb.  It is the reality of the Law's abiding force that renders Christ's death necessary for us today.  If the demands of God's Law were not still in full force, we would have no need of a Savior.  Christ fulfills the Law's demands on our behalf, and as a result, we are left with the knowledge of how God feels about things.  We have room to grow in our God-like moral nature now, without fear of being annihilated.  Such is the grace of God – for those who trust in Christ.

  137. Dee,

     

    Please don't take my post as denying real conversions by way of the Sinner's Prayer.  Many prayers are effectually sincere and God is in them.  My only intention was to speak in a general sense about the church, with the hope of building us up.  If God's work was dependent on error-free delivery by men, we would all be doomed.  Even the Apostles made mistakes and erred.  It is up to us to do the bump dance and keep each other dancing on the dance floor.  🙂

     

    Just as you do not know the path of the wind and how bones are formed in the womb of the pregnant woman, so you do not know the activity of God who makes all things.

    -Ecclesiastes 11:5 (NASB)

  138. Doug,

    Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. We now live under the New Covenant.

    I'm not sure that we are on the same page on this most important aspect of salvation.

  139. Doug,

    There are a number of books and blogs and discussion groups which delve into the concept of New Covenant theology.

    Wade Burleson has written about it http://www.wadeburleson.org/2010/02/new-covenant-emphasises-being-led-by.html

    and at other places on his blog. 

    http://ids.org/what-is-new-covenant-theology/ is another one.

    I became convinced and free from bondage to the OT law after doing a lot of reading at

    http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/Gothard_discussion/

    It is a rather quiet group nowadays but the Files have a wealth of reading. You would be welcome. 

    It does kind of blow your mind to find out that life in Christ is not a list of rules to fail at, but a relationship with a living God who is at work in us. 

     

  140. “claiming that we must keep all the Old Testament laws” ?

    Take a look:  “An Interesting Contrast: Jesus & the Law” , a  perspective.

    1. The Chief [ Core] Commands of God Almighty in the Old Testament (Old Covenant) :

    Exodus 20:3-5 (NASB95)

    http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Ex20.3-5

    Exodus 20:7-8 (NASB95)

    http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Ex20.7-8

    Exodus 20:12-17 (NASB95)

    http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Ex20.12-17

    single page reference: (turn your iPad 8×11 to view)
    http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Ex20.3-5,7-8,12-17

    2. The Chief [Core] Commands of Jesus Christ in the New Testament (New Covenant) :

    Matt 22:37-39 (NASB95)
    http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt22.37-39

    Mark 1:15 (NASB95)
    http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Mk1.15

    John 13:34 (NASB95)
    http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Jn13.34

    Matt 7:12 (NASB95)
    http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt7.12

    Matt 5:4 (NASB95)
    http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt5.4

    Matt 6:19-20 (NASB95)
    http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt6.19-20

    Matt 26:41 (NASB95)
    http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt26.41

    Luke 24:49 (NASB95)
    http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt24.49

    Matt 28:19-20 (NASB95)
    http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matt28.19-20

    So, what conclusion do you draw from these scriptures?

    You decide.

    IronClad

  141. Ironclad

    It is all about grace. So many fear grace believing that stressing this doctrine will lead to people justifying sinful behavior. However, true understanding of grace fully acknowledges our sinful propensity while at the same time rejoicing in freedom. The Christian lives with that tension everyday. It is far easier to be a legalist. You can check off all the things you are doing as proof of your dedication. But, deep down inside, there is still a pit in your stomach as you attempt to ignore the ugliness that you know is there.

    That is why i rejoice in grace. I see the darkness, know that I cannot fully overcome the depth of it and so I rely on Jesus and praise Him for the freedom He has given me. It is finished!

  142. Hello!

        Yes, we cannot fully overcome the depth of the potential darkness that can exist with the human heart, nor can we negate, nor minimize the human condition. Yet we can, in reliance upon Jesus, God’s only and precious Son, who did what man, as a created being could not. -That of being acceptable to the Lord Himself, in sacrifice, and in service. Jesus, in whom The Father declared “He” was well pleased, atoned for us, the satisfaction of both the requirement of the law he gave to Moses to give to the people of Israel , and the satisfaction required to remove the gulf of separation between God Himself and man he created. The sacrificial lamb has been accepted as an eternal offering for what ever “sin” may exist, the Lord Himself being fully satisfied in His beloved Son’s atonement. Jesus came and ministered to His people, the people of Israel for some three and a half years, and faithfully honored His Father’s wishes for Him, Jesus, to drink the cup, even though Jesus Himself knew that He would be rejected of men and smitten. Jesus knew this well, the prophecy, and knew well the scriptures, he was about to fulfill. This did not deter Him from sacrificing Himself for His people, the people of Israel. However upon completion of that atonement, the stone in which the builders rejected became the chief of the corner, offering what was rejected to the Gentiles, a message He gave to Saul, the persecutor of his redeemed people, to faithfully take to the Gentiles, the glorious light of God’s accepting work through Christ. Saul later became Paul, and took the news of what God had brought about in Christ, and presented to the Gentiles as for what it was:

    An invitation.

    Come one and all to dine at His table freely.

    For Two thousand years this gracious offer has been offered freely with no merit required upon the recipient.

    What say you?  Will you accept His (Jesus’) offer?

    You decide.

    IronClad.

  143. How can David Platt know what is in the heart of the one who prays the Sinner’s Prayer?

    Ans: Likewise, how can altar-callers know the hearts of those they absolve, simply b/c the penitent pray the formula? How does the guarantee of salvation by the (SBC) preacher differ from priestly absolution offered by a (Romish) priest?*

    Do you believe the Sinner’s Prayer is “superstituous” [sic] and “unbiblical” and that asking Jesus into your heart is “dangerous” and “damning”?

    Ans: ANY formula that is pitched as a sure-fire way into heaven is a false hope. It is definitely unbiblical, as is any guarantee of salvation just b/c one prayed acc. to church tradition. Thus, it is dangerous. God never saves anyone BECAUSE s/he prayed – that’d be salvation by works! So it could be superstitious and even damning.

    But if the person has been born again and come to true faith in Christ, then her/ his prayer is an indication that s/he has received new life. Just as Romans 10 promises.

    * Of course, one difference is that the popish priest only conveys forgiveness until the next mortal sin, confession, & absolution; the Baptist preacher bests him by promising immediate eternal life to everyone who prays the way he says. (Rick Warren is a big, classic example here.) The difference is one of degree, however, not of kind.

  144. We might all agree that the Sinner’s Absolution is superstitious, unbiblical, dangerous, & possibly damning.

    Whether done by a priest or a preacher.

    It is sadly ironic that many who would cringe at Rome’s (or the East’s) sacerdotalism would still maintain that they can judge someone to be “SAVED!” b/c that person prayed a certain way. Hmm, sounds pretty Romish to me…