.
Before you read further, please watch this video by prominent Baptist pastor David Platt (thanks to Eric Brown for the link):
.
.
As David points out in the clip, the idea of “accepting Jesus” or praying a prayer unto salvation isn’t found in the Bible. While I agree with his sentiment, prudence mandates clarification.
First, the obvious – the sinner’s prayer and the idea of “accepting Jesus” simply isn’t found in scripture.
Second, I agree with Platt’s sentiment because often if not most of the time in churches that advocate the use of the sinner’s prayer as a valid form of evangelization, the prayer is offered up as a “quick fix” to heal one’s broken relationship with God without repentance. Before becoming a Christian, I was personally told by tracts and people attempting to convert me that, “If you will just say this prayer, you will be saved when you die no matter what.”
I wasn’t taught to turn from sin, to stop using drugs, to stop sleazing around, to stop doing violence with my words, to in any way submit myself to the LORD, or that I needed to change anything. All I needed to do was say a few magic words, and POOF – I would be saved, and once saved always saved.
I had been hit in the head a few times up to that point in my life, but even so their teaching didn’t sound right to me. In fact, I thought it was stupid, and later in life when I read the Bible for myself I learned for certain that it was – Jesus taught much differently.
In Luke 13:3 & 5 Jesus, speaking to a crowd who believed God’s judgment would be reserved only for the worst of people, said:
“Unless you repent, you too will perish!”
Jesus taught that’s God’s coming wrath would not be reserved only for the worst of the worst, but for anyone who refuses to repent (i.e. turn from sin and live for Jesus).
In Luke 14:27, Jesus said:
“Anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.”
In the Bible, being a disciple is synonymous with being saved. Notice, Jesus says you must follow Him in order to be His disciple or to be saved.
Herein lies the problem with the sinner’s prayer: people are taught to pray it, then to live their lives as if Jesus were following them.
That’s not repentance, biblical, or the mark of a disciple – it’s heresy, and I do not use that word lightly at all. It is h e r e s y - teaching people repentance is optional is to speak death into their lives.
Matt Dabbs wrote a response to this video clip earlier. In his post, Matt reflects on how the early church responded to the question, “What must I do to be saved?” I’m in agreement with what he has to say. We have many examples in the Bible that the response the early church had to that question was, “Repent, be baptized, be filled with the Holy Spirit”, and of course this was understood to be the first step in one’s lifelong service to Christ.
What worries me is this: many today teach people to be baptized, but neglect teaching those same people to repent, and neglect teaching them that repentance is something that will be on-going along with teaching (as the Great Commission mandates).
While baptism is a “first step” one should take in their new walk with God, it can be just as powerless and unbiblical as the traditional teaching surrounding the sinner’s prayer if a person is not fully committing themselves to follow Jesus for life.
In addition to Romans 6, 1 Peter 3:21 is the passage that has most influenced my understanding of this:
“… and this water [speaking of the Noahic floodwaters] symbolizes baptism that now saves you also – not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”
The Greek word translated “pledge” in this verse is the same word used to describe the “pledge” a soldier was required to make to his commanding officer when joining the Roman Army. The soldier pledged to follow the orders of his commander even if it meant death – he literally had to pledge his life to his commander.
In the same way, when we decide to follow Jesus, we pledge to give our entire lives to our Commander – King Jesus. This is required to be in His army, the church.
Baptism is the biblical prescription for making that pledge, and a willing heart motivated by the love of Christ is the only prerequisite.
I truly believe it’s that willing, submissive, humble heart that God responds to – a heart that has caught a glimpse of the beauty of Jesus causing one to pour over, “You are God, and I am not!” – a heart that is willing to pledge all to living under the rule of Christ.
That being said (and this may challenge some readers): I know a lot of people whose understanding of baptism differs from my own, but I do not doubt their salvation.
Why? Because of the fruit I see that is readily before my eyes – the fruit that only comes from a heart living out faithful submission to Jesus.
On the flipside, I’ve encountered others who agree with my understanding of baptism, but the fruit I’ve seen makes me wonder where their heart really is and if Jesus has it at all.
This is truth: the New Heaven and New Earth will be filled with people who had some very different ideas and beliefs about important things while on earth, but they all had one thing in common: they lived with hearts in submission to Jesus Christ – imperfect, finite, fragile hearts relying on their Savior.
Who knows? Some of them might have even prayed the sinner’s prayer … because in the end it’s not about a prayer or baptism – it’s about hearts submitting to Jesus Christ who are in it for the long haul.
I’ll not pray for Jesus to come into my heart, but I will pray that my heart be in submission to His.
In the end, that’s what really matters.
Thanks Wes. Did you read Joey’s comment on my post? He said,
“The “believer’s prayer” is part of the individualization of the Gospel that has happened in the West. “Come into MY heart” rather than, by baptism, entering into HIS Story.” You reflected some of that sentiment in your post and I think it is right on track. The problem with everything, even perfectly good and biblical things is that people are involved in the process so we are likely to mess up even the most simple of things. I am so thankful that God is full of grace. Last, we need to stop talking about baptism as if it was a work. I don’t wonder at all why various groups think we believe we are saved by works because, honestly, we have talked like we are for many years. It is time we get it straight and reflect in our teaching a biblical view of baptism as a submissive and grace-filled act where God is the one who does the saving, not me twisting God’s arm by checking all the right boxes. That doesn’t mean baptism is unimportant. It does mean it needs to be properly understood.
Thanks for the reply, Matt. This is a bit off-topic but since you alluded to works, I believe the contemporary conversation surrounding works based salvation is largely based on a false premise. I’m not sure but that Paul wasn’t speaking specifically about works of the Judaic Law each time he brought up the subject in the New Testament as opposed to “works of righteousness” as Luther, Calvin, and others understood it. I need to study this some more, but that’s my current leaning.
Depends on your view of the New Perspective on Paul (E.P. Sanders, Dunn, etc) who say the Mosaic law was not really a system of works righteousness like we have seen it in the past. Rather, that view came from reading Luther back into the Law. You can read up on covenantal nomism if you want more on that. That might inform your thoughts on that topic.
Let me explain a bit more, just the basics. The NPP says that in the Law people were “in” based on identifying markers of Judaism which included circumcision, dietary laws, sabbath and holy days. What kept you in were the laws and conventions put in place by the Law (namely sacrifice for forgiveness of sins). We have typically viewed the whole law as what get you and keeps you in and as a system of works righteousness. The NPP would say it was not that at all. Hope that helps.
Wes, I think you may be right. I have been thinking about this a lot recently as I’ve been teaching an Intro to New Testament class this semester and lecturing a lot on Paul. It seems that Paul WAS consistently talking about the works of the law. Furthermore, he often tells his churches that they must do certain things to be saved. For example, look at 1 Cor 6:9-11. He lists wrongdoers who will not inherit the kingdom of God, and he is speaking to people who have presumably accepted the gospel and been baptized. It sounds like he is saying there are things people have to do to be saved. And by saying that, I am setting off the works-righteousness alarm and Luther might pop out of his grave and punch me in the face. But seriously, if Paul did not mean works of the Law when he said that works will not save us, then what kind of exegetical gymnastics do we have to do to explain away verses like the one I just cited? Also, this understanding of Paul squares better with other biblical texts such as James and Rev 20:12-13.
The Jew/Gentile division was the biggest problem Paul was facing in the church in the first century. It’s obvious he devoted tons of time to teaching about it in addition to writing about it.
Paul states the purpose of his ministry in Romans 1:5-6 – to call people to the obedience that comes from faith. Isn’t it interesting that, even though he states that plainly in the Roman letter, people have attempted to use certain verses from the Roman letter to teach you don’t really have to obey?
I’m somewhat familiar. I read Dunn’s commentary on Romans while taking a Greek exegesis course covering Romans at Fuller.
Baptism is no more a work than believing is a work or repentance a work. When Jesus tells you to do something, obeying Him is NOT a work. Obeying is the action of belief.
It’s NOT my place to judge who is and who is not saved. God will do that. That being said, Scripture makes it pretty clear that we don’t have excuses anymore. And Jesus said that obeying Him was loving Him. Jesus Himself make it pretty clear who was going to Heaven in Matt 7:21. “Those who DO the will of the Father”.
Agreed.
I have a book review of Gordon T. Smith, “Transforming Conversion: Rethinking the Language and Contours of Christian Initiation,” Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010., in the latest issue of Restoration Quarterly. I would highly recommend this book. Smith takes to task the “Sinner’s Prayer” approach, basically exposing it as being unbiblical and unhelpful in the making of disciples. He equates Evangelicalism’s conversion process with simply being interested in saving souls rather than making disciples. In my own more crass terms, his argument is that Evangelicalism’s approach to conversion is simply about getting people their ticket to heaven (eternal salvation).
While the Restoration Movement has insisted upon keeping believer’s baptism connected to the conversion process, it is my judgment that our function of baptism has been nothing more than the same function as the sinner’s prayer. That is, people are taught to be baptized so that they can be assured of having their ticket to heaven; rarely do we hear of baptism being taught for the purpose of disciple making so that baptism becomes a commitment to discipleship whereby it is an act of repentance as it was in Acts.
Any ways, I am glad to see others (such as Chan, Platt, and Smith) within the broader world of Evangelicalism start to speak out about this.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Thanks for the book recommendation, Rex. We must be about making disciples.
Amen!
The thought process and teaching of a “personal savior” in Jesus is akin to having a guardian angel. Think along with me, if you were drowning in a pool, or lake, or ocean and a man or woman jumped in and saved you you would be grateful. You would buy them dinner and be thankful for a period of time. However, over the course of your life, your involvement with them would wane to the process of adding them to your Christmas card list, and maybe a thank you card on the anniversary of them saving you (sound familiar?).
However, if you were to join the service, or police force then you take an oath of office to subject yourself and obey the laws of this nation. When we repent and are baptized we are making a pledge to serve our King Jesus. Not be thankful to someone who pulls our butts out of a bad situation from time to time.
Thank you Wes for sharing this with us. A beautiful call to be more than grateful, and begin to serve a King.
That’s what I’m talkin’ about – thanks Johnny
So many excellent comments. It’s such a paradox that we could teach the right thing (baptism) but be so wrong in how we do it (not including repentance and discipleship as an integral part of the discussion). Yeah, we mouth the words and repeat the phrases, but living it out?… So sad, but that doesn’t happen as well as it should. I know of many rural churches in the north Alabama area that will staunchly stand against clapping while the church is assembled. (Mostly they mean during singing, but they would object to anyone celebrating a baptism by applause too.) They will get up in arms about all of that but aren’t bothered by “faithful members” who sit there with no expression on their face and no song on their lips. Sure, unless you’re a song leader you don’t see that since we’re all facing in one direction and no one dares look around lest they make eye contact… Point is they’re getting the forms down right, but discipleship is woefully lacking. A really disciple will be singing with a sincerity and a fervor that accomplishes the “teaching and admonishing one another” that Jesus intended.
Another thing too is that we don’t exactly understand repentance correctly. I’ve always heard that it’s a change of heart or a change of mind that leads to a change of direction — that your mind was hellbent on sinning so that’s the direction you’re walking, but you repent and change you mind / heart and decide to do right so you quit sinning and do a 180 and head back to God. That’s close, kinda. And if that understanding actually got someone to change their sinful ways then I won’t dispute it with them, but really it’s more significant than that. Repentance in the Greek is meta-noia, which means mind-change (kinda like it instructs in Romans 12:1-2). God is omnipresent, so we don’t have to turn 180 degrees to get back to him. We don’t have to turn 360 degrees or 37 degrees or 298 degrees. We have to have a radically different mindset. We have to think entirely different. Meta-noia would be like changing our direction to something perpendicular to the plane we walk in (kinda, it’s a spiritual endeavor so dimensions and their measurements don’t apply).
Good points, G – thanks for the comment
[...] When it comes to judgment, it will be our hearts that acquit us or condemn us (I spoke a bit about this at the end of the post on the sinner’s prayer and believer’s baptism). [...]
[...] ***http://outoftheoverflow.com/2012/04/12/why-accepting-jesus-into-your-heart-is-superstitious-unbiblic… [...]
[...] When it comes to judgment, it will be our hearts that acquit us or condemn us (I spoke a bit about this at the end of the post on the sinner’s prayer and believer’s baptism). [...]
[...] known Reformed Southern Baptist pastor David Platt caused a stir last year by criticizing the sinner’s prayer – the traditional prayer most Baptists (and several other groups) teach new believers to pray [...]