I wrote the following as a comment to a post by Jason Janz over at Sharper Iron. The post provided excerpts from an hour and a half long interview of Mark Dever (available from that post) that Jason conducted. I commented on the brief excerpt below. What follows that quote is my original comments (posted back before their site crashed and lost many of their old posts).
JJ: And if they did, then you would or wouldn’t lead them in a prayer per se?
MD: What do you mean if they “did it?”
JJ: If they said “I believe.”
MD: Well, wonderful. Let’s watch. We’ll see….
I listened to much of this interview a few weeks back. Mark Dever is very interesting to listen to! This interchange, though, stuck out the most to me. Dever’s “What do you mean if they ‘did it’?” is simply amazing. He seems to come from a tradition that is not inundated with the “1,2,3 pray after me” menatlity, like most of fundamentalism is.
I see a big question raised by Jason’s question, “And if they did, then you would or wouldn’t lead them in a prayer per se?”: what would the prayer do? If they said “I believe” or if they, presumably, responded favorably to an “invitation” (a modern notion, with its roots in Charles Finney, a rank arminian, openly heretical on the doctrine of the atonement), or were convicted by a sermon and were directed to trust in Jesus and then had faith, what would praying for salvation or praying to be saved do? If all who genuinely believe are saved, as John 3:16, Acts 16:31, and etc. teach, then why does anybody need to pray for salvation?
Is there any example of any evangelist or of Christ himself ever directing someone to ask for salvation or to pray anything like a “sinner’s prayer”? The “sinner’s prayer” so often cited was a story Jesus told, and certainly someone praying the kind of prayer the publican prayed manifested genuine faith. That is why I believe that sometimes people will naturally pray some kind of prayer, as an expression of faith. Much like someone might stand and say “I believe”. But what happened first, the prayer or the belief?
Rom. 10:14 would clearly say the belief. It is important to see that Rom. 10:14 comes right on the heels of vs. 13 and provides much to help us in interpreting vs. 13. It seems to force us to see “saved” as referring to ultimate salvation. For all who believingly pray on the Lord/worship the Lord (trace the phrase “call on the Lord” in the Old Testament or New Testament and see how it is used of worship often, and often describes those who are saints. 1 Cor. 1:2–the saints are those who continually are calling on the Lord.) will be ultimately saved at the resurrection/judgment. I think it is clear that “saved” in Romans 10 refers to glorification. And I believe this is substantiated by vs. 14 saying how can they call if they have not believed (first)? Vs. 10 gives the correct order in time concerning justification, while the order given in vs. 9 is paralleling the quote of Moses discussed in vs. 5-8. I believe vs. 11 is more correctly translated by the ESV’s “put to shame” rather than the KJV’s “ashamed” (the KJV has something similar for the translation of the same greek word in 1 Pet. 2:6). Vs. 11 really is not paralleling the english idea of shame in the sense of “everyone who believes will not be ashamed of the gospel, but will eventually confess Christ before men”. But rather is saying “everyone who believes in the cornerstone will not be destroyed by the coming flood of judgment, they will not be put to shame by the judgment coming”.
Think about it. When someone is praying the “sinner’s prayer” they may have already believed, but really are still unsure that mere simple faith in Christ will be enough to save them, so they add the prayer in hopes that this will really work. So then, are we really making our converts two-fold more the child of hell by giving them assurance based on a prayer (a work that they did)? If they have believed, they should be encouraged that belief alone is all that is needed since we have such a wonderful Savior. They may want to pray a prayer of thanks for God’s already having saved them, as they are already united to Jesus Christ by faith. They should further be encouraged to live for Jesus, and warned that their faith will be proven genuine by their fruits. Then they should be baptized and added to the fellowship of believers, their local church.
∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7
O Great Arm Chair Theologian, please stay in your arm chair and off the web.
Ah! but I can be on the web and in my armchair!
fundyreformed,
Keep up the good work of exposing the errors of modern evangelism. Easy believism or the Sinner’s Prayer technique of evangelism is unscriptural as it usurps the power of the Holy Spirit in convicting the sinner. How can anyone put repentance and faith into the mouth of a sinner? It is solely the work of the Holy Spirit.We are just commanded to preach the gospel of repentance and faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit will do the rest.
Dan,
Thanks for your kind comments. I am glad this blog has been a blessing to you.
God bless,
Bob
very nice
Ho-hummm… so, the “altar call””sinner’s prayer” silliness is being shown to be fruitless AGAIN. Good on you, FundyRef. Fine work, that article. Now, I am hoping someone who reads here can answer some simple questions for me:
How is it that we can call a sinner from their way, tell them to renounce the world, and then give them nothing except lists of doctrines to believe as some kind of “proof” that they are “really saved”? How is it that one denomination can condemn TV, pop music and short hair on women while another can not only allow but ENCOURAGE these things as totally innocuous? What are the FRUITS that the C-ristian evanjellyfish ministers are always trying to call people to bear? Love? Goodness? Kindness? Patience? I see those in people of every religion and none, every day. Belief in “J-sus C-rist” as a man/g-d? The Catholics believe that; so do the Toronto Revival crowd. Oh, wait… I see. So, your C-ristian religion IS really just the struggle to make people capitulate to your particular denominational doctrines; otherwise, First, Second, Missionary and Reformed Baptists in the same town would all have to pool their funds and become one big happy, right? Ha. I’ll not live to see that day.
Fact is, C-ristianity is a mish-mosh of people who all “felt led” to believe this or “got spoken to” by some ghost about founding a new c-urch. “I don’t have a witness on that”… what a crock. “It seemed like G-d spoke to me”… please. The Eternal does not SEEM to speak; He has spoken through His Word. Those who think that their inner feelings are the promptings of the Almighty are unstable and looking for answers somewhere other than where they can be found; His Torah. C-ristianity is the result of founding a religion on the authority of pagan men who taught perverted doctrines to uneducated people and blended them with the practices of the other religions in the Roman Empire. Make up all the Replacement Theology you want; the reason C-ristian altar-calls don’t work is that G-d doesn’t want those offerings or those altars. You want to invite people to repentance? Invite them to stop breaking the commandments they have been ignoring for their whole lives, and then let them return to His way, the only way there has ever been.
One last question before the hoop-jumping and logic-leaping and tap-dancing begin:
Many people say they have “liberty in Jayzis” to smoke or drink alcohol or listen to C-ristian rock, and others claim liberty to dress or behave socially and denominationally (separation or lack of it) as they please.
Why, then, can another person not have “liberty in Jayzis” to observe the 7th day “Sabbath” (Elizabethan Anglicizations of Hebrew words are damn funny)? Why can’t a guy wear a skullcap? Why can’t a person have “liberty” in the name of your Gentile Jayzis to behave as the historical Rebbe from the Galilee behaved? Is it because the only “liberty” you want is one from the obvious and plain meaning of the commandments? Is it because people want liberty to act like everyone else? I guess the denim-jumper/head-scarf homeschool crowd has it a little right; they make you suburban, upwardly-mobile “liberty” freaks uncomfortable, and it makes you mad.
Anonymous Jew,
First off, I apologize for taking so long to respond. I haven’t really blogged this month until yesterday. I was on a vacation, and a blog break.
Now let me get right to this. Thanks for coming here and commenting. I appreciate all views.
You jump into a critique of the sinner’s prayer methodology with 2 main issues. Christianity if it was really true would be more uniform than it currently is, and it would result in a firm unbendable law. At least that is what seems to grab me from your comment.
You and I both agree that the Torah is given by inspiration of God. It is Holy, perfect–the very Word of God. The giving of the Law was accompanied by glorious miracles (I’m assuming you’re still with me).
Nothing short of a stupendous miracle that would attest to the intervention of God would suffice for supplanting the Torah. Only an absolute surety that God was again speaking would move many of His people to move away from all the intricacies of Torah’s legal/ceremonial system.
Ah, but with the miracles of Jesus, and His personal resurrection, we have just such a miracle. There is abundant proof for the miracles. How else could 12 uneducated men change the course of history? Why would so many willingly be martyred for a resurrection myth?
Aside from the miracles is the unparalleled fulfillment of scores of specific prophecies in the Torah/Old Testament. The suffering servant prophesied in Isaiah and Zechariah, among other places, has indeed come. In the words of the epistle to the Hebrews: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.”
Judaism admits that God intervenes in human history, that He speaks and reveals His will. So with the advent of Christ, a Jew must examine the evidence and make sure it does not contradict the truths previously revealed in the Torah. Many a Jew before yourself has made such an examination and discovered Jesus is Messiah.
Your points about dis-unity and differing positions on certain legal matters are not as clinching as you claim. Judaism is hardly uniform and there are various interpretations of how binding each law is.
Christianity is about more than a code of righteousness. It is about the advent of the Lamb of God who was slain as the ultimate Passover sacrifice, whose blood covers us. The true Day of Atonement was once and forever made on Calvary, when God offered His own son to bear the iniquity of our sins and make atonement for us. The blood of bulls and goats can never take away sins. Good works cannot cancel out the true guilt which is ours for each of our sins.
If you are sincere and open, I’d be glad to point you to some further resources which can help to answer some of your questions. I am open to interacting further with you if such an interaction would prove beneficial to both of us.
May God grant you eyes to see Jesus as Messiah,
Bob Hayton
This is something I think you will appreciate.
http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ba.htm
Don
Please direct future comments on this post to the repost linked above.