Category: Quick Prayerism

1 2 3, repeat after me, say this prayer and I guarantee you will go to heaven — that’s a quick prayer, and that does not save

Mining the Archives: Once Saved, Always Saved?!?!

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments


From time to time, I’ll be mining the archives around here. I’m digging up Bob’s best posts from the past. I’m hoping these reruns will still serve my readers.

Today’s post was originally published February 11, 2006.

 

 

Today’s popular evangelical maxim “once saved, always saved” while based in the Biblical truth of justification by faith alone has morphed into a virtual get-out-of-jail-free card for far too many. The church’s duty to make disciples of all nations has been downgraded to an optional extra. The gospel call to repent and believe has become a plea for sinners to assent to the facts of the gospel, pray a prayer, and join the cool Christian club called churchianity. Gone are the stern warnings to “watch and pray” and “endure to the end”. Gone are the bold exhortations to “make your calling and election sure” and “be diligent to be found in [Christ] without spot or blemish”. In their place are the warm assurances “since you confessed you are saved” and “since eternal life is a free gift, God cannot take it back”, and the friendly reminders “everybody makes mistakes” and “don’t sweat: remember, we’re under grace!” The old doctrine that saints must diligently make a personal effort to persevere in faith has been overshadowed by the new doctrine that saints can live just like anyone else in the world and as long as they once assented to gospel truths they are most certainly bound for heaven.

I wish I was merely exaggerating the situation. But when a nationally well known evangelical leader like Charles Stanley seriously believes and teaches that people who actually stop believing in Christ and walk out on God are still eternally secure, I can hardly be accused of overstating my case. In the article linked to above he claims, “The Bible clearly teaches that God’s love for His people is of such magnitude that even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from His hand.” He goes on to only deal with Eph. 2:4-9 and 1 Cor. 1:21, while adding in a good portion of reasoning and illustrations. In his book Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure? he makes the startling claim that salvation can be compared to receiving a tattoo. Even if moments later, you regret receiving the tattoo, it cannot change the fact that you have it! (pg. 80)

The Grace Evangelical Society exists to perpetuate such ideas. In other specters of evangelicalism, easy believism is represented by a 1-2-3-repeat-after-me approach to evangelism. A very large segment of independent fundamental Baptists (represented by literally thousands of churches and tens [if not hundreds] of thousands of members) emphasizes this approach to such excess that staggeringly huge numbers of salvations and baptisms are reported each year–which if really true, would make the Great Awakening look like a picnic. People are converted in five minutes or less–even through a rolled-down window during the duration of a stop light! One church has boasted of a million souls saved in the past 25 years, and yet less than 500 attend on any given Sunday.

Today no view seems criticized as much as Lordship Salvation or the Calvinistic doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. These views are very similar, if not synonymous and both share a strong critique. Charges of “works-salvation” or “perfectionism” are thrown mercilessly at these misunderstood views.

So how did we come to such a time and situation as this? It seems that in a mix of zeal and evangelistic fervor, popular Christianity began to move away from its confessional roots in the late 1800s. American individualism probably worsened the situation, as Sola Scriptura became the license for anyone and everyone to disregard centuries of theological formulations and church teaching and come up with a myriad of homespun theories. The lasting impact of Charles G. Finney, who rejected substitutionary atonement among other orthodox doctrines, also contributed to what became popular American revivalism. Today, people have hardly heard of many of the great Reformation confessions like the Westminster Confession or the Synod of Dort, and yet they are quick to find a proof text for a host of contradictory Biblical teachings.

Yet a misunderstanding of perseverance is not limited to Arminians and non-Calvinists today, either. Doug Wilson says it well in a recent post on Heb. 3:7-19:

Apostasy is a real sin, committed by real people. This is something that Arminians get, and that most Calvinists do not get. None of the elect can every [sic] be taken out of God’s electing and sovereign decree. This is something that Calvinists get, and that Arminians do not get. Arminians can read Romans 8 through 11 and not see the absolute sovereignty of God, which is something that never ceases to astonish me. But lest we Calvinists get on a high horse, Arminians can read though Hebrews and can see real apostasy there. There are few things more exegetically embarrassing than to hear a Calvinist talk about how the warnings are hypothetical, like “keep off the grass” signs in the middle of the Sahara. There are many things that can be said to this, but the most compelling of them is that the warnings invariably deny that they are anything like hypothetical….The sin warned against here is that of evil unbelief, pure and simple. Not only is it unbelief, it is unbelief resulting in apostasy — departure from the living God, falling away from the living God. The sin is spoken of in the sternest possible way — rebellion, hardened hearts, evil heart of unbelief, and a departure from God…..This book [Hebrews] is about the sin of apostasy. Can a Christian fall away? Yes. Can someone who is truly regenerate, elect of God, an eternal Christian, fall away? No, clearly not.

Before I go on to defend the Biblical (I believe) doctrine of perseverance, let me provide here a brief excerpt from John Piper’s book The Purifying Power of Living by Faith in Future Grace

A few years ago I spoke to a high school student body on how to fight lust. One of my points was called, “Ponder the eternal danger of lust.” I quoted the words of Jesus–that it’s better to go to heaven with one eye than to hell with two–and said to the students that their eternal destiny was at stake in what they did with their eyes and with the thoughts of their imagination….After my message…one of the students…asked, “Are you saying then that a person can lose his salvation?”…This is exactly the same response I got a few years ago when I confronted a man about the adultery he was living in….I pled with him to return to his wife. Then I said, “You know, Jesus says that if you don’t fight this sin with the kind of seriousness that is willing to gouge out your own eye, you will go to hell”….As a professing Christian he looked at me in utter disbelief, as though he had never heard anything like this in his life, and said, “You mean you think a person can lose his salvation?”…So I have learned again and again from firsthand experience that there are many professing Christians who have a view of salvation that disconnects it from real life, and that nullifies the threats of the Bible, and puts the sinning person who claims to be a Christian beyond the reach of biblical warnings. I believe this view of the Christian life is comforting thousands who are on the broad way that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13)….The main concern of this book is to show that the battle against sin is a battle against unbelief. Or: the fight for purity is a fight for faith in future grace. The great error that I am trying to explode is the error that says, “Faith in God is one thing and the fight for holiness is another thing….The battle for obedience is optional because only faith is necessary for final salvation.” (pg. 330-331 and 333)

Belief in perseverance does not negate the great truth that faith alone justifies and secures our eternal salvation. Rather it affirms with Martin Luther, “We are saved by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.” Our works prove the sincerity of our faith, and are in this sense necessary. This is why so many passages teach that God will actually judge all mankind by their works. Without exception, Rom. 2:6-11 states: “He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immorality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.” The reason this does not teach works salvation is that when we come to God in faith (as a result of his work of regeneration in our hearts–John 1:13 and 1 Jn. 5:1, and his gifts of faith–Acts 3:16, 15:9, 18:27, 1 Pet. 1:21, Phil. 1:29, Eph. 1:19-20, 2 Pet. 1:1 and repentance–Acts 5:31, 11:18, 2 Tim. 2:25) he begins a good work in us (Phil. 1:6) and will be the One to complete it. He will produce good works in us as a testimony of the genuineness of our faith–Eph. 2:10, Phil. 2:13, 1 Cor. 15:10, 1 Thess. 5:23-24, Jude 24, Tit. 2:14.

In other words, true regeneration produces true fruit. This is Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 7:18-19 “A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” In the parable of the sower, the only soil which produced fruit was the good soil. Even thought the rocky soil produced plants which looked healthier than the fruitful plants, they bore no fruit and withered away. Jesus said this represents those “who receive [the word] with joy…but…have no root: they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away.” The clear teaching of the parable is that transient faith does not save. Only the faith that bears fruit saves.

In understanding perseverance, it is important to recognize the difference between justification and glorification. Justification is the legal pronouncement of “not guilty” which happens immediately upon our faith and is based on Christ’s substitutionary atonement. This pronouncement is a voice from heaven, so to speak, concerning our hearts. The testimony from earth (our lifestyle) does not unfalteringly reflect this. Sanctification is a slow and gradual process of the out-working of our faith and the living out of our justification. Glorification is the point when we are gloriously transformed into Christ’s image immediately after our death. At this point salvation is final. Up until then, since we cannot enter heaven’s throne-room and hear the irreversible verdict of “not guilty” applied to us, we must trust in sanctification to prove the genuineness of our faith. The term “salvation” is most often used in Scripture to refer to our glorification and only sparingly used to refer to justification. So when we see the English words “whoever believes will be saved” it usually is teaching that whoever believes will one day ultimately be saved/glorified. The Greek tense used for “believe” most often (99% or more of the time) in such statements is the present tense which directly conveys a continual action. Literally, it is often stated, “the believing one will be saved”. If we walk away from faith and cease believing we prove to not be a “believing one”.

Perseverance is required of believers. It is our duty. But the flip side of this is the teaching that God will preserve His elect (John 10:26-30, 1 Pet. 1:5, etc.). So all of the elect–all the truly regenerate among professing believers–will persevere and it will be by God’s grace. Most reading this post already understand that God will preserve the elect, so I will not labor to prove that assertion. But what follows will conclude this post by providing a defense of my assertion that the Bible requires us (professing believers) to persevere.

The Bible speaks of our need to “examine” ourselves (2 Cor. 13:5) and to diligently “make our calling and election sure” (2 Pet. 1:10). We cannot assume that since we believed in the past or made some profession of faith, we are absolutely and inviolably secure eternally. We must make room for the Scriptural potential that our faith could be insincere or not genuine. Luke 8:13 again, speaks of those who “believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away”. Even Paul leaves it open that he might even still yet become a “castaway” (same Greek word for apostate) in 1 Cor. 9:27.

Heb. 3:12-14 (along with other warning passages in Hebrews) is emphatically clear that we might ultimately fall away, and so thus we need to daily exhort one another to continue in belief. Paul calls this the “good fight of faith” in 1 Tim. 6:12 and exhorts Timothy to “take hold of the eternal life” (6:12) and to “hold faith” (1:19), because some had already “made shipwreck of their faith” (1:20), and some have “abandoned their former faith” (5:12), and others have “swerved from the faith” (6:21). This is why he exhorts Timothy to “Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.” (4:16) This is why so often Paul and other Scriptural authors do not boldly assure their readers of their personal sharing in Christ, rather they hold out before them their duty to persevere. See all the conditional statements in the following verses: Col. 1:23–“if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast,…”; 1 Cor. 15:2–“by which [the gospel] you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you–unless you believed in vain”; Heb. 3:6–“and we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope”; Heb. 3:14–“we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end”; John 8:31–“if you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples”; Mark 13:13–“the one who endures to the end will be saved”; 2 Tim. 2:12–“if we endure, we will also reign with him”; Rom. 8:13–“if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live”; Gal. 6:9–“in due season we will reap [eternal life (see 6:8)], if we do not give up”; Heb. 12:14–“holiness without which no one will see the Lord”; James 2:26 (with 14)–“faith apart from works is dead” and “can that faith save him?”

Scripture never gives us assurance of salvation based on our profession of faith (in a past time and place), rather it declares the objective reality of Christ’s work and the subjective reality of the Spirit’s work in our lives as the grounds for assurance. (And the stress in 1 John is on our subjective experience of characteristic obedience.) 1 John 2:3 states ” And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.” 1 John 2:19 also gives us the key to understanding this truth. It helps us to interpret what happened when we see someone who seemed to have genuine faith fall away. It declares, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” In other words, we should not conclude like some Arminians that all professing believers who fall away have in fact lost their salvation. Rather we should conclude that they were only professing but not possessing faith. Paul teaches this same truth when he declares belief could be in vain (1 Cor. 15:2) or could be only temporary (see 1 Thess. 3:5). Jesus also clearly taught both the reality of professors being proven to not possess faith in the scary passage of Matt. 7:21-23, and the need to persevere in Luke 21:34-36 among other places.

To sum up the teaching of perseverance, let us quote 2 passages. 2 Thess. 2:13b “God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.” Heb. 6:12b “be…imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.” Both of these passages teach that ultimate, final salvation (inheriting the promises) come to those who both believe and persevere (are sanctified/have patience).

But should this teaching result in our condemning large segments of evangelicalism and condemning many we know? Are we to judge them as not being true possessors since we may doubt their perseverance? No! Emphatically, no! Remember, justification is a heavenly sentence. We do not know, here on earth, what that sentence is. We can judge based on their fruits, but we also must be aware of the motes and beams in our own eyes. We should judge ourselves first and others much later. We can have confidence and hope in our sovereign God that there are evidences of grace in all who profess salvation. But then again, we know Biblically that this is most likely not the case. So rather than condemn one another, we should seek to edify one another and encourage them to press on, and to continue in belief (Heb. 3:2-14 and Gal. 6:1-9).

Before I close, we must revisit that popular maxim, “once saved, always saved.” If “saved” is viewed as glorification, I do not disagree at all with that statement. Nor would I if “saved” is viewed as justification. But once again, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of justification is in your works (James 2). So even with the truth of once justified, always justified in view, we must never assume we have been justified if we have no good works to point to as Spirit-wrought proof.

In conclusion, brothers and sisters, I say with the apostle John “Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward.” (2 John 1:8) And remember that although Jude warns us to “Keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life” (v. 21) he also assures us “Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy…” (v. 24). So do not lose heart. Trust in God’s great promises, and fight the good fight of faith. Above all, do not presume that you have arrived and are outside the bounds of Scripture’s warnings. Rather, “be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.” (2 Pet. 1:10)

For a more succinct treatment of this topic, I refer you to an earlier post where I reproduce a helpful outline on Heb. 3:2-14. Also, for a Biblical look at how important mutual edification of believers is, see my post on 1 Thessalonians. And for more resources concerning this topic, check out some articles and sermons by John Piper listed here on the issue of future grace, or just read his book referenced above. (You can get a copy at the following retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Christianbook.com & Amazon.com.)

For further thoughts on this topic check out posts in my Perseverance category. You may also want to look at my explanation of the five points of Calvinism here. Also, if you want, you can read all 65 comments on the original post.

Quotes to Note 22: Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Altar Calls

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

When asked if Scripture justifies the use of public invitations (altar calls) or not, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones responded quite directly.

“The invitation should be in the message. We believe the Spirit applies the message, so we trust in the power of the Spirit….

…I feel that this pressure which is put upon people to come forward in decision ultimately is due to a lack of faith in the work and operation of the Holy Spirit. We are to preach the Word, and if we do it properly, there will be a call to a decision that comes in the message, and then we leave it to the Spirit to act upon people. And of course He does. Some may come immediately at the close of the service to see the minister. I think there should always be an indication that the minister will be glad to see anybody who wants to put questions to him or wants further help. But that is a very different thing from putting pressure upon people to come forward. I feel it is wrong to put pressure directly on the will. The order in Scripture seems to be this – the truth is presented to the mind, which moves the heart, and that in turn moves the will.”

You can read the entire response by Dr. Lloyd-Jones on this subject over at Banner of Truth [HT: Aaron Sauer]. Also be sure to check out a few posts I’ve done related to this issue, of the “altar call”:

J.C. Ryle on Revivalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

American Christianity in general, and Fundamentalism in particular has been greatly impacted by the Revivalist movement. J.C. Ryle, often hailed as the last of the great British Puritans, is perhaps best known for his book entitled Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties, and Roots. In a chapter on “Counting the Cost”, he had some important things to say about the Revivalist movement. I find Ryle’s words quite helpful on this subject, especially as they are spoken by an orthodox, evangelical churchman looking on as Revivalism was beginning to sweep the known world.

Warning: the quote here is a bit long, but many of you will want to read the whole thing, I’m sure.

For want of “counting the cost,” the hearers of powerful evangelical preachers often come to miserable ends. They are stirred and excited into professing what they have not really experienced. They receive the Word with a “joy” so extravagant that it almost startles old Christians. They run for a time with such zeal and fervour that they seem likely to outstrip all others. They talk and work for spiritual objects with such enthusiasm that they make older believers feel ashamed. But when the novelty and freshness of their feelings is gone, a change comes over them. They prove to have been nothing more than stony-ground hearers. The description the great Master gives in the Parable of the Sower is exactly exemplified. “Temptation or persecution arises because of the Word, and they are offended” (Matt. 13:21). Little by little their zeal melts away, and their love becomes cold. By and by their seats are empty in the assembly of God’s people, and they are heard no more among Christians. And why? They had never “counted the cost.”

For want of “counting the cost,” hundreds of professed converts, under religious revivals, go back to the world after a time, and bring disgrace on religion. They begin with a sadly mistaken notion of what is true Christianity. They fancy it consists in nothing more than a so-called “coming to Christ,” and having strong inward feelings of joy and peace. And so, when they find, after a time, that there is a cross to be carried, that our hearts are deceitful, and that there is a busy devil always near us, they cool down in disgust, and return to their old sins. And why? Because they had really never known what Bible Christianity is. They had never learned that we must “count the cost.”* (the following long footnote is Ryle’s)

*I should be very sorry indeed if the language I have used above about revivals was misunderstood. To prevent this I will offer a few remarks by way of explanation.

For true revivals of religion no one can be more deeply thankful than I am. Wherever they may take place, and by whatever agents they may be effected, I desire to bless God for them, with all my heart. “If Christ is preached,” I rejoice, whoever may be the preacher. If souls are saved, I rejoice, by whatever section of the Church the word of life has been ministered.

But it is a melancholy fact that, in a world like this, you cannot have good without evil. I have no hesitation in saying, that one consequence of the revival movement has been the rise of a theological system which I feel obliged to call defective and mischievous in the extreme.

The leading feature of the theological system I refer to, is this: an extravagant and disproportionate magnifying of three points in religion,-viz., instantaneous conversion-the invitation of unconverted sinners to come to Christ,-and the possession of inward joy and peace as a test of conversion. I repeat that these three grand truths (for truths they are) are so incessantly and exclusively brought forward, in some quarters, that great harm is done.

Instantaneous conversion, no doubt, ought to be pressed on people. But surely they ought not to be led to suppose that there is no other sort of conversion, and that unless they are suddenly and powerfully converted to God, they are not converted at all.

The duty of coming to Christ at once, “just as we are,” should be pressed on all hearers. It is the very cornerstone of Gospel preaching. But surely men ought to be told to repent as well as to believe. They should be told why they are to come to Christ, and what they are to come for, and whence their need arises.

The nearness of peace and comfort in Christ should be proclaimed to men. But surely they should be taught that the possession of strong inward joys and high frames of mind is not essential to justification, and that there may be true faith and true peace without such very triumphant feelings. Joy alone is no certain evidence of grace.

The defects of the theological system I have in view appear to me to be these: (1) The work of the Holy Ghost in converting sinners is far too much narrowed and confined to one single way. Not all true converts are converted instantaneously, like Saul and the Philippian jailor. (2) Sinners are not sufficiently instructed about the holiness of God’s law, the depth of their sinfulness, and the real guilt of sin. To be incessantly telling a sinner to “come to Christ” is of little use, unless you tell him why he needs to come, and show him fully his sins. (3) Faith is not properly explained. In some cases people are taught that mere feeling is faith. In others they are taught that if they believe that Christ died for sinners they have faith! At this rate the very devils are believers! (4) The possession of inward joy and assurance is made essential to believing. Yet assurance is certainly not of the essence of saving faith. There may be faith when there is no assurance. To insist on all believers at once “rejoicing,” as soon as they believe, is most unsafe. Some, I am quite sure, will rejoice without believing, while others will believe who cannot at once rejoice. (5) Last, but not least, the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, and the absolute necessity of preventing grace, are far too much overlooked. Many talk as if conversions could be manufactured at man’s pleasure, and as if there were no such text as this, “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” (Rom. 9:16.)

The mischief done by the theological system I refer to is, I am persuaded, very great. On the one hand, many humble-minded Christians are totally discouraged and daunted. They fancy they have no grace because they cannot reach up to the high frames and feelings which are pressed on their attention. On the other side, many graceless people are deluded into thinking they are “converted,” because under the pressure or animal excitement and temporary feelings they arc led to profess themselves Christians. And all this time the thoughtless and ungodly look on with contempt, and rind fresh reasons for neglecting religion altogether.

The antidotes to the state of things I deplore are plain and few. (1) Let “all the counsel of God be taught” in Scriptural proportion; and let not two or three precious doctrines of the Gospel be allowed to overshadow all other truths. (2) Let repentance be taught fully as well as faith, and not thrust completely into the background. Our Lord Jesus Christ and St. Paul always taught both. (3) Let the variety of the Holy Ghost’s works be honestly stated and admitted; and while instantaneous conversion is pressed on men, let it not be taught as a necessity. (4) Let those who profess to have found immediate sensible peace be plainly warned to try themselves well, and to remember that feeling is not faith, and that “patient continuance in well-doing” is the great proof that faith is true. (Rom. 2:7; John 8:31.) (5) Let the great duty of “counting the cost” be constantly urged on all who are disposed to make a religious profession, and let them be honestly and fairly told that there is warfare as well as peace, a cross as well as a crown, in Christ’s service.

I am sure that unhealthy excitement is above all things to be dreaded In religion, because it often ends in fatal, soul-ruining reaction and utter deadness. And when multitudes are suddenly brought under the power of religious impressions, unhealthy excitement is almost sure to follow.

I have not much faith in the soundness of conversions when they are said to take places in masses and wholesale. It does not seem to me in harmony with God’s general dealings in this dispensation. To my eyes it appears that God’s ordinary plan is to call in individuals one by one. Therefore, when I hear of large numbers being suddenly converted all at one time, I hear of it with less hope than some. The healthiest and most enduring success in mission fields is certainly not where natives have come over to Christianity in a mass, as recent events have shown in New Zealand. The most satisfactory and firmest work at home does not always appear to me to be the work done in revivals.

There are two passages of Scripture which I should like to have frequently and fully expounded in the present day by all who preach the Gospel, and specially by those who have anything to do with revivals. One passage is the parable of the sower, That parable is not recorded three times over without good reason and a deep meaning.-The other passage is our Lord’s teaching about “counting the cost,” and the words which He spoke to the “great multitudes” whom He saw following Him. It is very noteworthy that He did not on that occasion say anything to flatter these volunteers or encourage them to follow Him. No: He saw what their case needed. He told them to stand still and “count the cost.” (Luke 14:25, etc.) I am not sure that some modern preachers would have adopted this course of treatment. (pg. 88-91 of the 2001 Grace Books International edition)

Do you agree or disagree? I think even Ryle would be surprised at how far these tendencies of the Revivalist movement would go. He would be dumbfounded by “free grace” theology or the gospel which turns conversion into such a “moment in time” that it’s compared to a tattoo which one can regret moments later and yet still be stuck with, no matter what.

I encourage you to read Ryle’s entire book online. Or you can pick up a copy of Holiness for yourself.

Charles Finney, Ergun Caner & Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 14 Comments

Most of you have probably heard of the Ergun Caner scandal. Caner, a dynamic speaker, was dean of Liberty University until recently. He came under fire for making self-contradictory statements about his past. He was raised Muslim and it seems that after 9/11/2001 his memories about his past changed in a dramatic fashion. I haven’t been following the scandal all that closely, but there must be truth to it as Liberty deposed him from his position as dean (although they keep him on as a professor, still).

Anyway, Tom Chantry of Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Milwaukee, put out a series of articles in which he set the Caner story in a wider context of evangelicalism’s ills. The posts which most caught my attention centered on Charles Finney and his legacy left to evangelicalism. Chantry views Caner as being a step-child of Finney’s in a sense. Caner’s appeal and widespread acceptance could only have happened in a post-Finney evangelical world.

The reason I’m including fundamentalism in this post, is I believe Chantry’s comments about how Finney shaped evangelicalism apply equally to fundamentalism. In this post I’m going to summarize Chantry’s 3 posts and quote extensively from the last post. I would encourage you to read the entire series however and study out the issue of Charles Finney even further, if you haven’t already.

Encountering Finney

In the first post, Chantry describes his horror of reading through much of Finney’s systematic theology book in school. He was absolutely stunned that someone who believed in a works-oriented salvation scheme to appease an angry god could be accepted as a Christian minister worth emulating. That will sound incredulous if you haven’t heard of Finney’s aberrant theology before. Apparently his theology has been edited down through the years but even still, it is readily apparent that he denied substitutionary atonement. Along the way, according to Chantry, he redefined such fundamental terms as “faith” and “justification”. For more on Finney’s bad theology, read this piece by Phil Johnson.

Charles Finney’s Step-children

In the next piece, we learn how Finney became so influential among evangelicals (who could never be the true children of Finney as they would never accept his godless theology of self-reformation). I appreciate Chantry’s care to distinguish true evangelicals from Finney and his belief that many who revere Finney have been mislead and themselves are genuinely Christian. We learn how it was the methodology of Finney which was most revered, even though those who used it should have looked into the theology behind that methodology. I have previously written of Finney’s impact on evangelicalism through his invention of the altar call. Chantry confirms my research that the altar call seemed to originate from Finney.

…And Finney Begat Caner…

Chantry’s third installment (and I believe one more is coming this week), centers on the connection between Finney and Caner. Caner again would only be a step-child not a true child of Finney. Chantry points out how evangelicalism as a whole has been primed to recieve characters like Caner. I will now quote from the third article at some length.

Without Finney, there could have been no Caner. The reason is that Finney’s influence has created an atmosphere within the Evangelical church in which Caner’s style of preaching, and indeed his multiple deceptions, might flourish.

I have argued that the Caner scandal belongs to all evangelicals. His behavior is a reflection on the state of the evangelical church at large, and we must all take ownership of what has happened. What exactly is the state of post-Finney Evangelicalism, and how has it allowed for the likes of Ergun Caner?

After introducing things, Chantry goes on to discuss several characteristics of Evangelicalism that are Finney’s legacy and also apply to Caner’s appeal.

Evangelical Manipulation

Finney’s manipulation consisted of the “artful, unfair, and insidious” control of the emotional state of his hearers in order to bring about a “decision” which was anything but. We make decisions when we decide to take a certain course of action, generally after thoughtful consideration. Finney’s “decision” had nothing to do with thought. His hearers were whipped into a terror over the thought of hell. This sudden emotional state was a work of Finney’s art, and he knew how to mold it into a decision to follow God. He utilized every form of pressure to bring about the desired end.

Over the years evangelists have learned that other emotions can be equally well utilized to bring about a decision. Various moral crusaders have capitalized upon a manufactured sense of outrage, while missions promoters have made an equally good use of pity. Often these tactics are aimed at producing a donation, but there is no reason why they cannot be turned to the purposes of Finneyite evangelist as well.

Any emotion will do, provided that the speaker can stoke that emotion into flames and that he has the skill to turn it in whichever direction he chooses.

He goes on to show how Caner’s sensational comments about his Muslim heritage were an attempt to manipulate crowds for a positive end. Evangelists do similar things all the time in evangelicalism, and especially in Fundamentalism. Tear-jerking stories, sensational yarns, missionary stories that raise the hair on the back of your neck… I’ve seen and heard them all.

Evangelical Entertainment

As Finneyism first spread, a dramatic shift in worship services began. Finney looked to bring about decisions by whatever means were available. As a result, services began to become more dramatic. The mentality of doing whatever it took to draw in crowds began to take hold around the country. Music was used in a new way in churches – to entertain rather than to worship.

We know the circus atmosphere which this mentality has bred in the modern church. No spectacle is too outrageous if it can have the outcome of making sinners more open to “making a decision for Jesus.” This is perhaps Finney’s enduring legacy in the church. Thanks to his methods, the exemplary pastor is no longer so much a shepherd or a teacher as he is an entertainer.

Again, we can see how Finney paved the way for an Ergun Caner to rise to prominence within the church. Many have observed that he is essentially a stand-up comic. His sermons are long on humorous anecdotes and short on doctrinal truth. One listens to his sermons and can easily imagine a “preacher” who has to go home and “come up with some new material” before he goes out on tour again. In Caner’s case that has meant a steady diet of racial stereotypes and soft ethnic slurs. He can refer to his wedding as “The Godfather meets the Beverly Hillbillies” and everyone has someone to laugh at.

It ought to be hard to figure out what this sort of talk has to do with gospel preaching, but in modern Evangelicalism we can all too easily imagine. Preachers are not thought effective unless they keep their congregation laughing. Those who listen to Caner’s more outrageous pulpit moments may wonder why the churches have put up with him. The answer is that he is truly funny. Most people couldn’t say the things he says and get a laugh, but he is a gifted comedian. In the post-Finney evangelical culture, gifted comedians always have a place in the pulpit.

Again, pulpit antics and over-the-top humor are things I’ve repeatedly observed in many sectors of fundamentalism too. It makes sense that this emphasis on style (anyone remember Billy Sunday?) flows out of a Finneyesque evangelicalism.

Evangelical Growth

If the entertainment-driven services of the modern church are not Finney’s great legacy, then it certainly must be the numbers-mania which now dominates our evaluation of evangelists. Finney thrived on the number of decisions made at his meetings. He counted his converts and published the numbers. There were no other criteria on which Finney could have become popular – let alone a sensation – within the Christian world. Ever since, Christians have been rating evangelists based upon the numbers they produce.

This part ties in to Caner in that his dramatic work at increasing student enrollment has in part justified keeping him at Liberty. Anyone familiar with fundamentalism, especially the Jack Hyles wing of the movement, knows numbers are everything.

Evangelical Relativism

But there is more. Finney, the prophet of moralism, fostered an insidious relativism in the church.

Finney’s theology was man-centered in more ways than one. While it is true that his theology began with God as the moral governor of the universe, his concern with morality was entirely what it said about the future condition of man. He did not concern himself overmuch with the glory of God…. It is not surprising that within his moral system any action may be justified so long as it results in a sinner deciding to follow God. Finney’s approach to evangelism crystallized this relativism; the end of conversion justified the means of manipulative and often blasphemous evangelism….

Today’s evangelists are unlikely to be given a pass if they seek to accomplish the expansion of the kingdom through adultery. There is, however, one sin which is always forgiven. Evangelists may always lie. Any lie is justifiable when it is told for the sake of winning the lost to Christ.

I grew up in a Reformed enclave isolated from the shenanigans of modern evangelists, so I can never forget the first altar call I ever saw from a Finneyite practitioner. Right after he told everyone to bow his head and close his eyes (I didn’t) he told a lie: “I’m not going to ask you to come up front.” It wasn’t just a lie; it was a dumb lie. Even I could tell that the only reason he said it was because he was about to start asking folks to come up front.

Having told one lie, the evangelist got on a roll. He said he just wanted people to raise their hands so that he could pray for them. I sat in the back of that crowded church and watched a sea of heads bowed while the preacher began to call out, “You over there on the right, I’m praying for you! And you, sister, down here in front, I’m praying for you!” Except no one – and I do mean no one – was raising his hand. The man just couldn’t stop lying! Of course as soon as everyone was convinced that they wouldn’t be the first to raise a hand, hands started flying up all over the room. Then he made those poor, deluded people come up front.

The man lied, didn’t he? Broke a commandment? Did what even our smallest children know to be a major sin? It seemed so to me, and it ought to seem so to every Christian. Yet it does not. Within the evangelical culture what he did was perfectly understandable. He got people to the front of the church, and numbers are what matters.

I’m sure many of you, like me, can identify with Chantry and his observations about this altar call experience. Evangelists stretch the truth to get decisions, and ultimately numbers.

This post went a little long, but I wanted to highlight these various aspects of Finney’s impact on evangelicalism. Ultimately he impacted fundamentalism too. I believe fundamentalists of today are waking up to the errors of Finney. I hope future generations will see a more careful evangelicalism too.

Mining the Archives: Why Pray the “Sinner’s Prayer”?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

From time to time, I’ll be mining the archives around here. I’m digging up Bob’s best posts from the past. I’m hoping these reruns will still serve my readers.

Today’s post was originally published December 10, 2005.

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 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). Note: I’ve updated the link to point to the current page which contains the interview. The excerpts are no longer included in that post.

Jason Janz: And if they did, then you would or wouldn’t lead them in a prayer per se?

Mark Dever: What do you mean if they “did it?”

Jason Janz: If they said “I believe.”

Mark Dever: 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.

For more on “the sinner’s prayer”, see my later post: “The Sinner’s Prayer Problem“.