Category: Theology

Classic Arm Chair Theology at its best (or should that read worst?)

Man-Centered Christianity (part 4)

~ fundyreformed ~ 6 Comments

previously in this series–part 1, part 2, “The Sinner’s Prayer Problem” (part 3)

In the posts above, I have introduced the problem of Man- centered Christianity, and begun exploring how the problem became so widespread in the American evangelical Church today. Part 3 was an aside, focusing on the problem of the “sinner’s prayer”–a method which has contributed in part to the problem of man-centeredness in Christianity. Before I continue, it might be good to review what it is I’m addressing in these posts.

Much like the problem of going to church for ourselves, man-centeredness results in a blurring of the distinction between the church and the world. God is important, church is my thing, but my life is, well my life.

I read the following quote in John Piper’s book The Legacy of Sovereign Joy (pg. 118):

“I suddenly saw that someone could use all the language of evangelical Christianity, and yet the center was fundamentally the self, my need of salvation. And God is auxiliary to that….I also saw that quite a lot of evangelical Christianity can easily slip, can become centered in me and my need of salvation, and not in the glory of God.” “” quoted in Tim Stafford, “God’s Missionary to Us” , Christianity Today, Dec. 9, 1996.

When church is all about us, that’s a problem. And today, the Bible has become a guidebook on how we can have a great life. Church is important, but not particularly vital. It’s sort of an optional extra which adds benefit to your life, but sometimes the cost can be a pain.

Theologically, God loves us, because we are so important and special to Him. That’s why Jesus died for all, He had to do what he could for us, you know.

How did we get here?

In part, the sinner’s prayer and other techniques for getting people to receive Christ are to blame. Of course many have legitimately been saved using these methods, but the methods subtly shift the focus from God to man. Whereas in the past evangelists majored on declaring the gospel faithfully, and letting the Holy Spirit work, today we encourage people to do something: pray a prayer, walk an aisle, etc. Then we pronounce them saved.

This leads me to today’s post: the common understanding of eternal security has contributed to this problem. Once saved, always saved–this idea has helped further the inordinate focus on man in today’s Church.

Here’s how it goes. A preacher attracts someone into the church by highlighting how Jesus can add purpose to their life. He gets the convert to settle his guilt problem and his anxiety over a possible eternity in Hell by promising the convert full salvation if he only prays the sinner’s prayer. After jumping through that hoop, the convert is then told he can never lose salvation. It’s free, and God’s not a liar.

The convert then is exhorted as to his obligations to love and follow God, because of all God did for him. So a dutiful following of Jesus often happens. And since worship is fun [or maybe the people are], the convert may stay around a while. Of course since, the convert’s personal value was what made the gospel important, so its natural for him to expect the other messages of the church to practically benefit his life and help him. However, the convert may eventually lose interest in church, or fall out of sorts with this or that friend. Since God wasn’t central, its easy to not look back–especially since the convert, if he knows anything, knows he has “fire insurance”.

Because security is taken for granted, the convert has no need to continue believing and trusting Jesus. He may love Jesus because of how he feels now; but with a change of feeling, the love might vanish as well. What God wants, and who God is, is sort of removed from the convert’s experience. He might learn to appreciate God’s perspective, but ultimately his own personal interests matter most.

Now I must make myself clear: the above scenario often does not happen. Often those who hold to this idea of eternal security still go on to live holy lives with genuine love for Christ. Many of these people are not man-centered at all.

Still, this understanding is wrong. The idea that just praying a prayer makes you eternally secure if very wrong. And if you’ve ever talked to backslidden converts, you will hear that they subscribe to this view. Even preachers have said that there’s nothing you can do once saved, to lose your salvation. And this can overtly encourage a very licentious lifestyle.

So, “eternal security” is wrong???

No, I’m not saying that true believers aren’t eternally secure. Don’t get me wrong, please. I am saying that the historic belief of the orthodox Church does not jive with a “once saved, always saved” (OSAS) mentality. Historically, emphasis has been on the perseverance of the saints not on their preservation. The saints are preserved, but all true saints, will persevere–they will not finally fall away.

The problem with OSAS is that it flies in the face of such clear Biblical warnings as:

  • “He has now reconciled [you]… in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard…” (Col. 1:22-23)
  • “…the gospel… which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you–unless you believed in vain.” (1 Cor. 15:1-2)
  • “…and we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope.” (Heb. 3:6)
  • “Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God…For we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.” (Heb. 3:12, 14)
  • “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples.” (Jn. 8:31b)
  • “But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” (Mk. 13:13b)
  • “For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” (Rom. 8:13)
  • “…in due season we will reap [eternal life (see 6:8)], if we do not give up.” (Gal. 6:9)
  • “Strive for… the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” (Heb. 12:14)
  • “faith apart from works is dead” and “can that faith save him?” (James 2:26 with 2:14)
  • “And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.” (Heb. 6:11-12)
  • “…they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away.” (Luke 8:13b)

The last verse above coupled with 1 Thess. 3:5, teach that faith might not last. 1 Cor. 15:2 teaches that belief could be in vain. Jesus warned against those who professed to know Christ but didn’t in Matt. 7:21-23, and he testified to the need for perseverance to the end in Luke 21:34-36. This is why the Scripture encourages us to “examine [ourselves], to see whether [we] are in the faith” (2 Cor. 13:5a) and to “make our calling and election sure” (2 Pet. 1:10).

I have more to say on this important point, and I’ll come back to it in the next post. I will leave you with a few earlier posts of mine which will help you understand what exactly I’m saying, and why I think it is Biblical.

Also, this external link, provides some excellent reasons why God would put such warnings in Scripture, even though all of the elect will certainly persevere (John 10:27-30, 1 Pet. 1:3-5).

We Believe (#1): Scripture

~ fundyreformed ~ 5 Comments

We believe glorious Truth as Christians. The next several Sundays I plan to post sections from my church’s Elder Affirmation of Faith. I’m doing this because every few weeks our congregational reading is an excerpt from this document. Every time we all read aloud the truths we confess, my soul rejoices. I pray these posts will aid you in worshiping our Lord on His day.

Scripture, the Word of God Written

We believe that the Bible, consisting of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, is the infallible Word of God, verbally inspired by God, and without error in the original manuscripts.

We believe that God’s intentions, revealed in the Bible, are the supreme and final authority in testing all claims about what is true and what is right. In matters not addressed by the Bible, what is true and right is assessed by criteria consistent with the teachings of Scripture.

We believe God’s intentions are revealed through the intentions of inspired human authors, even when the authors’ intention was to express divine meaning of which they were not fully aware, as, for example, in the case of some Old Testament prophecies. Thus the meaning of Biblical texts is a fixed historical reality, rooted in the historical, unchangeable intentions of its divine and human authors. However, while meaning does not change, the application of that meaning may change in various situations. Nevertheless it is not legitimate to infer a meaning from a Biblical text that is not demonstrably carried by the words which God inspired.

Therefore, the process of discovering the intention of God in the Bible (which is its fullest meaning) is a humble and careful effort to find in the language of Scripture what the human authors intended to communicate. Limited abilities, traditional biases, personal sin, and cultural assumptions often obscure Biblical texts. Therefore the work of the Holy Spirit is essential for right understanding of the Bible, and prayer for His assistance belongs to a proper effort to understand and apply God’s Word.

*Taken from the Bethlehem Baptist Church Elder Affirmation of Faith, paragraphs 1.1 – 1.4. You are free to download the entire affirmation [pdf] complete with Scriptural proofs for the above statements.

More on Asking Jesus Into Your Heart

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

I’m not quite ready to pick up my Man-Centered Christianity series yet. But the latest post on the sinner’s prayer, has been well received.

Since posting on the problematic use of the sinner’s prayer as well as the non-Biblical phrase “Ask Jesus into your heart”, I ran across three other posts on the issue that are worth the read. I thougt I’d share them here while our thoughts are on this important issue.

  • TomintheBox reports on the frantic search for the phrase “Accepting Jesus into Your Heart”. While always hilarious, TomintheBox sometimes uses satire to deal with serious issues. This is such an issue.
  • The InternetMonk (Michael Spencer) also discusses what’s wrong with “Christ Knocking at the Door of Your Heart“. He helpfully explains how this idea came about and the negative ramifications of such an emphasis. This is really a post worth reading, even if we might disagree with the IMonk on some issues (such as Calvinism).
  • The IMonk actually links to one of my reforming fundamentalist friends, Brian McCrorie. Brian has an excellent post delving into this problem further, especially showing how it hampers child evangelism.

These are all worth reading. I hope to have the next installment of the series done tomorrow or Friday, so bear with me!AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Is Membership in 1 Local Church Biblical?

~ fundyreformed ~ 28 Comments

The baptism discussion is raising many questions. Sam Storms has entered the discussion and emphasized how the very nature of the Lord’s Supper would lead one to include all believers not engaged in gross unrepentant sin in the celebration of the Supper.

I ask how is celebration of the Supper different from membership in the local church? And even more pointedly, is membership in 1 local church biblical?

Where do we get the idea of a specific roll-call style membership? We see believers together in homes and meeting in different locales. We see a great amount of interaction and unity among various churches. Do we ever see separate churches in one geographical area? Do we have a basis for assuming that today’s world of thirty plus evangelical churches in the average Midwestern city (I’m probably underestimating the number, too) is a good thing?

Consider the fact that once believers join a particular church, they often forget about those fellow saints who attend other churches in the same town. And many of those churches have almost no ties with the other evangelical churches in their town. Is this advisable? Is this biblical?

My friend Nathan Pitchford discussed these trends in an article a while back: “Shopping for the Right Church“. He calls for us [see also the comments under that post] all to take some radical steps toward a practical togetherness focused on the Gospel.

Please weigh in with your thoughts? Why do we assume the status quo is both best and biblical?AddThis Social Bookmark Button

The “Sinner’s Prayer” Problem

~ Bob Hayton ~ 50 Comments

** this is part 3 in a series on man-centered Christianity, see part 1 & part 2.

Now I lay my fears to sleep
I prayed, now the Lord must keep.
Nothing to lose, everything to win
I prayed the prayer, now I’m in.

The above prayer is patently absurd. Yet many actually do think that praying the sinner’s prayer is what guarantees they will be saved. God’s hand is forced. Rom. 10:13 obligates Him to keep His promise. They have “called upon the name of the Lord”, and He must save them.

Often people are encouraged to give Jesus a try. Commit yourself to Jesus and you will enter a brand new and exciting life! It only takes a few minutes, don’t you want to know that you will spend eternity in Heaven? Just pray this prayer and mean it, and on the authority of the Bible I guarantee you will be saved! Come on, what have you got to lose?

Anyone will have to admit that this is extremely common. Some form of the above appeal commonly ends most evangelical messages. It is often employed at the end of 1-on-1 witnessing conversations. But put yourself in the shoes of the lost person. The promises of life change sound pretty good. I would like to be accepted and these people are really nice, after all. What would it hurt? Sure, I’ll pray this prayer.

Or think of the Hindu: I want to have the gods accept me. This Jesus must be a powerful god. If I can appease him, I’ll surely be better off. I’ll pray to him and worship him, just like my family worships their god of choice.

Or what about the Catholic: I pray to Mary all the time for acceptance. I never knew you could actually be sure of heaven. I’m not sure how this works, but maybe it will add to the merits my efforts have been giving me. I receive Jesus at communion, receiving him in this prayer makes sense. I hope this works, maybe I won’t have to keep going to confession. Here goes.

wingprayer.jpgMany are simply building their spiritual lives on a wing and a prayer. They enter Christianity as if it were a club. They pray the prayer and gain acceptance. They hear messages about how they are to feel about themselves and about various Christian ethical concerns. They give to charity, and dress nicely for their church gatherings. They feel generally good about themselves, and if they doubt their salvation, they are often assured on the basis of having prayed the prayer, that God will save them, because He doesn’t lie. Doubt is of the devil, after all.

Certainly there are many examples of those who have savingly believed at the time of their sinner’s prayer experience. Many are genuinely converted and trust in Jesus alone, even though they employed a sinner’s prayer. I want to be careful as I critique this popular method. But please consider the following.

1) No one in the NT is ever instructed to pray for salvation, or to pray “to be saved”.

2) The Bible witness is clear: believing Jesus saves you. So then, as I’ve wondered before, what would the “sinner’s prayer” do? Only those who believe in Christ will even pray the prayer and mean it. If the belief is what saves, why is the prayer framed in such a way as to imply that the asking is what saves? Does asking for salvation save, or does believing Christ alone save?

3) Rom. 10:13 in context does not teach that a prayer for salvation results in salvation.

Rom. 10:13-14 “For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?”

This is absolutely clear, before the “call” there must be faith. How can they “call” if they haven’t believed?

4) Why is “call on the name of the Lord” so quickly assumed to be “called out unto the Lord for salvation”? There is no object of the prayer in view in the text. In fact, if you trace the concept of calling on the name of the Lord, you will find something completely different. Let’s do that quickly.

1 Cor. 1:2 speaks of the saints as being “those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”. 2 Tim. 2:22 also speaks of “those who call on the Lord from a pure heart”. In both of these places the idea is used as a descriptive term for those who are worshippers of Jesus. This again is seen in Acts 9:14. Also, “call” is a continuous present tense idea — not those who did call (for salvation), but those who do call.

The NT use follows a pervasive OT usage of this idea. In the OT the phrase is often used of praying to God in specific circumstances for help, but it also refers to a general concept of worship: “I will call upon the Lord…”. The wicked are those who do not call on the Lord (Ps. 14:4), but the righteous do. Sometimes God delivers them physically or spiritually after their calls for help (Ps. 116:13) and other times God’s deliverance provides the impetus for the believers to call upon him (Ps. 80:18). In one sense, calling is what believers do — they come to God for help. But in another, it is who they are, they are worshippers who call upon their God.

Everyone, then, who calls on God, who is a worshipper of God, who worships God now and continually, all of these can expect ultimate salvation. “Salvation” is often referring to ultimate salvation or glorification, not justification, remember.

5) Rom. 10:9 is also not a formula for salvation. Merely saying “Jesus is Lord” does not save. Vs. 9 follows the order of the OT quote given in vs. 8 (“The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”). Vs. 10 seems to explain the logical or chronological order: belief is first, which brings justification; confession follows that, even as ultimate salvation follows justification.

6) The concept of asking Jesus in one’s heart is also unbiblical and unhelpful. See this booklet [PDF] by Pastor Dennis Rokser of Duluth Bible Church. Or this article by Todd Friel, of Way of the Master Radio.

7) The repentant publican who says “Lord be merciful to me, a sinner” had his repentant believing heart before he verbalized his prayer. And the thief on the cross changed his mind about Jesus, and ceased railing against him, before he called on him for mercy.

As humans, a prayer is sometimes inevitable. We may feel like we need to do something. We will pray to be saved and forgiven, but Scripture testifies that it is faith that saves. Requiring a prayer or encouraging someone to ask for salvation, muddles the waters and can potentially confuse matters. Enduring faith in the substitutionary Lamb of God is what saves. Trusting a personal act (praying) doesn’t. Worse, this theology can lead to a wrong assumption that even unrepentant faith can demand things of God.

I understand that there may be questions and difficulty in accepting what I’ve said here. I welcome further interaction in the comments. This post is sort of an aside from my current series on man-centered Christianity. I think the self-centered focus that the sinner’s prayer promotes is a contributing factor in the pervasive problem of man-centeredness in the church. In the next post, we will show how a wrong view of eternal security is likewise contributing to this problem. Then we will be ready to see what a God-centered view really is.AddThis Social Bookmark Button