Tag: Recommended

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“.

More on Helping Your Kids with Salvation

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

A few days ago, I posted on this question: How do we know our children are saved? After that post, I found a few more resources about this issue.

Justin Taylor highlighted a free series of sermons on how children come to Christ. The 6 part sermon series is available for free download.

My friend Jamsco of The Responsible Puppet, has a new blog about parenting: Responsible Father. One of his recent posts addresses this issue head on: Altar Calls for Children: I’m Against Them. As my previous post would let on, I agree with him on this one. Altar calls for children are more dangerous and confusing then helpful.

Finally, I should mention a book I’m working my way through. It’s by Donald Van Dyken, entitled Rediscovering Catechism: The Art of Equipping Covenant Children (2000, P&R publishing). Instilling the facts of the gospel into our children’s hearts is something we can all agree on. After this book, I’ll pick up Shepherding A Child’s Heart by Tedd Tripp (1995, Shepherd Press).

As parents, we can’t think more deeply about, or read more widely on this issue. It is the most vital aspect of our Christian parenting. Lord, have mercy — on us, and our children.

Great Review of ESV Study Bible

~ Bob Hayton

I’ve recommended this study Bible before. I just want to highlight a great review by Andy Naselli, in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. You can read the review here.

Once again, I’ve seen many study Bibles, and a few sit unused on my shelf. The ESV Study Bible is different. It’s eminenly useful and extremely valuable. You need to get a copy of this Bible! It was 2008’s ECPA Book of the Year for good reason.

Pick up a copy today at Amazon.com, or one of these Christian booksellers: Monergism Books or Westminster Bookstore.

“The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John” by Larry Helyer

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Author: Larry Helyer
Publisher: IVP
Format: Hardcover
Pages: 432
ISBN: 9780830828883
Stars: 4 of 5

When I received The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John: An Exploration in Biblical Theology by Larry Helyer, I noticed the book looked like a college or seminary text book. After reading it, I feel like I have earned some college credits!

The book is eminently suited for a text book, because it is really a course on a Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Helyer opens the book with a question that looms large in New Testament studies today: Is the New Testament unified in its message? It is common for liberal or modern NT scholars to claim Paul’s theology is opposed to Christ’s, and John’s concerns were opposed to Matthew’s. In response to this problem, Larry Helyer sets out to trace the theology of Jesus, Paul and John as found in the New Testament. Then he compares each of their emphases and puts the question to rest, in my opinion. There are different emphases but the basic message of these three primary movers in the NT remains largely the same.

Along the way, Helyer explains exactly what Biblical Theology (BT) is, and he describes the problem of the overall unity of the Bible by tracing a history of theology from the time of the Apostles to today. He then moves on to discuss the two basic evangelical systems of BT, Covenant Theology (CT) and Dispensationalism. His chapter defining BT helpfully discusses how the canon shapes our BT, and provides a helpful method for doing BT. His historical sketch of how the Christian church has dealt with the unity of the Bible opened my eyes to some of the big players in Biblical scholarship of the last couple hundred years. He explained the influence of Bultman, Von Rad, Robinson and others, with particular stress on the development of BT. In his discussion of CT and dispensationalism, I was helped by his comparison of the growth and development within CT with the rise of progressive dispensationalism. He doesn’t come and spell out his overall conviction in the matter, but takes care to follow the clear theological teaching of Scripture. From what I can tell he ends up more in line with the progressive dispensational or revised CT perspective.

The bulk of the book is his examination of the theology of Jesus (as seen in the Synoptic Gospels), Paul and John. This examination is strengthened by Helyer’s familiarity with 2nd temple Judaism and the similarities and differences such Jewish thought has with the New Testament. Helyer also explains the theological development of various key terms as he goes along. He is abreast of the points of controversy, and he navigates them with care.

In his section on the Gospels, I found his discussion of the Kingdom extremely helpful, especially with regard to working out how the Testaments are unified. He compares the different phrases “kingdom of God” , “kingdom of Heaven” , etc. and convincingly demonstrates they are synonymous. The kingdom is explained in terms of inaugurated eschatology, and Jesus’ use of the kingdom is shown as both similar and different from the Judaism of his day.

Helyer’s discussion of Paul begins by explaining that we only have insights into Pauline theology extracted from his overall thought. Paul’s letters are occasional documents, addressed to a specific church in a specific situation. After discussing the question of a center of Pauline theology, he handles the matter of justification and the new Pauline perspective quite well. He is careful to appreciate the new insights into Pauline thought, yet with his familiarity with 2nd temple Judaism he explains why he thinks the NPP goes to far in overturning Reformation thought. His discussion of Paul’s view of the Law was masterful, even though he took just a couple short pages to survey Paul’s view of the relationship of the believer and the law of Moses. He explains that while Jews are “under the law” , the Christian is “not under law” . The law has run its course in redemptive history. The Spirit, now, is the “moral governor of the Christian life” . “For Paul, the new covenant operates under a new law, the law of Christ, the law of love, which, while embodying underlying moral principles of the old Mosaic legislation, should not be strictly identified with it.” (pg. 266-268).

In detailing John’s portrayal of Christ’s person and work, Helyer takes pains to explain John is countering a proto-Gnostic error. There is a polemical thrust behind John’s presentation of Christ. On the question of John’s use of the term “Logos” , Helyer explains that the term has as much of an OT and 2nd temple Judaistic background as it has roots in Greek thought. In examining John’s writings, the emphasis on eschatology goes up a notch, of course. Yet an already, but not yet view of the kingdom is still inherent in John’s thought. Helyer’s treatment of Revelation was excellent. I especially liked his chiastic outline of the book (from pg. 353):

    A.  The Inaugural Vision: The Risen and Reigning Christ (ch. 1)
        B.  Messages to the Seven Churches: The Church Militant (chs. 2-3): What is the
          present prospect and promise for the church?
            C.  Vision of the Throne Room (chs. 4-5): Who is in charge?
                D.  Visions of the War for the Throne (chs. 6-16): The Wrath of the Lamb
                    1.  Seven Seals
                    2.  Seven Trumpets
                    3.  Seven Bowls
            C’.  Vision of Babylon the Great (chs. 17-18): Who will lose charge?
        B’.  Vision of the King and His Kingdom: The Church Triumphant (chs. 19-21):
          What is the future prospect and fulfillment for the church?
    A’.  The Final Vision: The Returning and Rewarding Christ (ch. 22)

His discussion of Rev. 20, also almost pushed me back into historic premillennialism. His exegetical treatment was clear and forceful. It forces me to go back and study that passage again in more depth.

At the end of the book, Helyer ties up the various strands of theology that Jesus (the Synoptics), John and Paul have been developing. Within the overarching and unifying theme of the Kingdom, Helyer finds a great degree of unity in this NT witness. Helyer is right to conclude by the end of his book that “enough… has been said to counteract the lopsided insistence that diversity and contradiction drown out any meaningful sense of unity and harmony.”

After sitting through Helyer’s “class” , I have a greater understanding of NT theology, and biblical theology in general. If you pick up the book, you will be glad you entered his course as well.

Disclaimer: this book was provided by the publisher for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a positive review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from IVP.

Dispensationalism Examined

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

I’ve been caught up in a couple interesting articles over on Sharper Iron. One is a story of one man’s journey out of dispensationalism, another is a story of why a former Lutheran is a classic deispensationalist. The comments are a wild ride through a sticky debate, to put it mildly.

At some point I want to type out my own story of leaving dispensationalism. But for now, I thought I’d compile a few helpful resources on the Dispensationalism question. Of course you can check out that category in my own blog, but here are a few resources. If anyone else wants to share something along these lines, please chime in.

My friend Nathan Pitchford, of Psalm 45 Publications and Reformation Theology, has several excellent articles on the topic. His article on the Abrahamic Covenant sticks to the OT witness about that covenant and explains how it fits with Hebrews’ spiritual perspective on the land promise.

Vern Poythress has an excellent book about this issue, available for free online: Understanding Dispensationalists. He presents Scriptural arguments against Dispensationalism, but does so in a charitable and helpful way.

There are also several articles and resources on Dispensationalism compiled at Monergism.com.

I have also been greatly helped by O. Palmer Robertson’s books on the Scriptural covenants. I’ve reviewed his books The Christ of the Covenants and The Israel of God on my blog. His books influenced my series of posts called Understanding the Land Promise, which presents a good explanation of my views. I also once posted an excellent power point presentation, from a friend of mine, on how to view all of Scripture from a covenantal perspective. The presentation is called The Advance of God’s Kingdom, and I found it extremely helpful.