Tag: Mark Dever

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“.

Can Fundamentalists fellowship with Mark Dever?

~ fundyreformed ~ 5 Comments

I’ve been distracted from my current series by some blog discussions regarding Mark Dever and fundamentalism. (I plan to bring my next post in the Land series tomorrow, Lord willing).

Mark Dever recently interviewed Mark Minnick, who teaches at BJU and pastors in Greenville. I haven’t listened to the interview yet, but I did read some various fundamentalist reactions to it. What piqued my interest was Dever’s recent post entitled: “Mark Dever Doesn’t Practice Separation?”

Mark’s post displays some consternation over charges by fundamentalists that he does not practice separation. He details many ways in which he and his church do separate. Dever’s explanation of separation describes my basic position: that separation does not have to look like the standard fundamentalist fare, in order to still be biblical separation.

You may want to read Dever’s post and then go on to read the comments. There are some thoughtful posts and discussions happening there which are helpful to anyone thinking through the issue of ecclesiastical separation and/or secondary separation.

Appreciating and Assessing Fundamentalism

~ fundyreformed ~ 3 Comments

Nine Marks Ministries, a conservative evangelical ministry aiming to strengthen churches by emphasizing Biblical rather than pragmatic approaches to ministry, recently released their March/April 2008 e-journal. This month the topic was unity and separation, with an emphasis on fundamentalism.

The journal was kind to fundamentalism. While it recognized a need to balance separation with unity, it gave fundamentalists like Dr. Dave Doran (pastor of Inter-City Baptist Church in Allen Park, MI and president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary) and Dr. Mark Minnick (pastor of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church in Greenville, SC and NT faculty member of Bob Jones University) an opportunity to defend their fundamentalist viewpoint.

The journal brought together some of the best articles on the issue of Biblically-based separation and unity. I particularly thought that the articles by Mark Dever, Albert Mohler, and Wayne Grudem were excellent. See this link where Justin Taylor provides links to all the articles in the journal. Or download the pdf version of the journal. Also, don’t miss out on the audio lecture by Iain Murray (of Banner of Truth) on “George Whitefield and Catholicity” (catholicity meaning Christian unity with the universal church).

Perhaps the most interesting part of the journal was the “Pastors’ and Theologians’ Forum on Fundamentalism“. It is a round-table discussion of sorts, where 19 different men were asked to answer this question: “What can we learn from the Christian fundamentalists?” For the most part, the answers focused on the positive contributions fundamentalism has made to evangelicalism. And while the faults of fundamentalism were sometimes mentioned, the overall feel of the discussion was one of a great appreciation for fundamentalists.

Ben Wright, a pastoral assistant at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC (home of Nine Marks Ministries), at his blog Paleoevangelical (which I would consider a reforming fundamentalist blog), asked for people to comment on which round-table answer they thought was the best. Ben of course expects his commenters to choose his own answer, as he contributed both to the roundtable and the journal (providing one article). I thought the idea was fun and could encourage some good conversation on these matters.

As I thought about responding, I felt I should just make my response into a post. So here goes….

I think the two best overall answers were Bob Johnson‘s and Carl Trueman‘s. And I appreciated some phrases and thoughts from other answers. I should also note that I learned a new derision of fundamentalism: “No fun, all da**, and not enough mental”. I should say that this was given tongue in cheek, and the 2 contributors who mentioned it were not bitter at the “fightin’ fundies”. I still thought it was funny, even though I recognize it is not true of many good fundamentalists I know.

Besides that line, I thought the following quotes were worthy of consideration:

…What it does is reassert a lost world, a once intact but no-longer-taken-for-granted cultural reality. In doing so, it both romanticizes the past and radicalizes the present with its overlay of psychological defiance and cultural militancy. Herein lies its danger to followers of Jesus: the cultural overlay grows more and more alien to the call of Jesus to his disciples…. (by Os Guinness)

In a day when Protestants seem to be as easily impressed by smooth-talking television preachers, beautiful liturgies administered by women and gays, or smart popes, we could use Fundamentalist suspicion. (by Darryl Hart)

I also was pleased to see someone make the same point I did about the place of the Gospel as it relates to extreme separation.

Sometimes, their practical applications appear to be as important as (or even more important than) the gospel. (by Matthew Hoskinson)

So what are your thoughts on the journal, or the round-table discussion?

Calvin on Fundamental Doctrines

~ fundyreformed ~ 11 Comments

In reading through Nine Mark’s e-journal on fundamentalism, I came across an audio lecture by Iain Murray (editor of Banner of Truth) on George Whitefield and Catholicity. Catholicity refers to a spirit of unity among the universal (i.e. Catholic) church, and not in any way to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.

The lecture was very interesting as it deals with George Whitefield’s life and influence. It focused on his ideas of Christian unity across denominational lines. And Murray alleges that this emphasis on Christian catholicity directly resulted in the birth of modern missions and other evangelistic ventures such as Bible societies and publishing houses. Murray is careful to apply Whitefield’s story to today’s Christianity, and warns against both a radical ecumenism and a sectarian disregard for unity.

In his lecture, he quoted from John Calvin on the idea of doctrines being fundamental or not. And as we’ve been arguing the historicity and validity of this idea (that doctrines can be ranked as primary and secondary, etc.), I thought I’d share the full quote, which I found in Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 1, section 12.

What is more, some fault may creep into the administration of either doctrine or sacraments, but this ought not to estrange us from communion with the church. For not all the articles of true doctrine are of the same sort. Some are so necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion. Such are: God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God’s mercy; and the like. Among the churches there are other articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of faith. Suppose that one church believes–short of unbridled contention and opinionated stubbornness–that souls upon leaving bodies fly to heaven; while another, not daring to define the place, is convinced nevertheless that they live to the Lord. What churches would disagree on this one point? Here are the apostle’s words: “Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be of the same mind; and if you be differently minded in anything, God shall reveal this also to you” [Phil. 3:15]. Does this not sufficiently indicate that a difference of opinion over these nonessential matters* should in no wise be the base of schism among Christians? First and foremost, we should agree on all points. But since all men are somewhat beclouded with ignorance, either we must leave no church remaining, or we must condone delusion in those matters which can go unknown without harm to the sum of religion and without loss of salvation. (emphasis added)

Also note the footnote (at the place where the asterisk is in the above quote), where John McNeill notes several proponents of this fundamental doctrine ideal in the seventeenth century.

*What follows is the footnote in my copy of the Institutes (edited by John McNeill [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960] ), emphasis added:

Cf. IV. ii. 1. The distinction of fundamental and nonfundamental articles of belief is woven into Calvin’s thought, though not definitively treated by him. F. Wendel remarks on the importance of this doctrine in Calvin’s championing of church unity, and cites Comm. I Cor. 3:11 (Corpus Reformatorum: Johannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia XLIX. 1354): “The fundamental doctrine, which it is nowise permissible to break, is that we cleave to Christ, for he is the only foundation [unique fondament] of the church.” The doctrines here named are introduced by the word qualia (such as) and are of course not a full enumeration of those which Calvin would hold requisite. The notion of fundamental articles formed the core of various liberal projects of union in the seventeenth century when it was advanced by Georg Calixtus, Pierre Jurieu, Samuel Werenfels, J.A. Turretin, and others. See Rouse and Neill, A History of the Ecumenical Movement, pp. 79 ff., 92 f., 107, 111.

I’ll have more to say on Nine Mark’s e-journal later. For now, you should know that several excellent articles on the question of fundamentalism, separation and unity are brought together in this one resource. I find it very helpful.

Essential Reading on Fundamentalism

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

I don’t have time now to get in depth, but I wanted to at least give you the link.

9 Marks Ministries‘ March/April e-journal is on the topic of fundamentalism and separation.

Some of the very issues, I’ve been debating about recently here are covered (including article’s I’ve referenced by Albert Mohler and Wayne Grudem). There are other new articles and thoughts on this topic from Ian Murray, Mark Dever and others. And they include David Doran and Mark Minnick with a fundamentalist perspective. Ben Wright, of Paleoevangelical, also contributes.

Again, I’m pressed for time, so I’ll just give you the link to the PDF copy as well as a link to the page that introduces the journal and provides html links to the articles.

PDF / HTML