Francis Chan: Are Your Beliefs Biblical?

Most evangelical churches in the United States teach the way to “get saved” is to recite the sinner’s prayer.

If you Google the words “sinners prayer,” the first website that shows up puts it like this:

“The Sinners Prayer”

Heavenly Father:
I come to you in prayer asking for the forgiveness of my Sins. I confess with my mouth and believe with my heart that Jesus is your Son, And that he died on the Cross at Calvary that I might be forgiven and have Eternal Life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Father, I believe that Jesus rose from the dead and I ask you right now to come in to my life and be my personal Lord and Savior. I repent of my Sins and will Worship you all the day’s of my Life! Because your word is truth, I confess with my mouth that I am Born Again and Cleansed by the Blood of Jesus! In Jesus Name, Amen.

If you read the Sinners Prayer and truly believe the words you read, then Praise the Lord as you have been saved and your name will appear in the “Lambs Book of Life!”

According to this website, if you want to “get saved” you have but to read this prayer and believe it. That is a fairly typical teaching and by no means is this a bad prayer. I hope you do read it, recite it, and truly believe it … BUT … I’m not sure reading this and believing it saves a person from their sin through Jesus.

The reason I have my doubts: this “path” to salvation isn’t in the Bible and praying this prayer to be saved was not a practice of the early Christians. Because of this, I refuse to teach it … but most church leaders in America today do and tend to get a bit sideways if you question its biblical validity.

That being said, I was shocked when I ran across the clip I’m going to share with you today.

Francis Chan is the author of Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God (among several others) and one of the most popular evangelical leaders in the country today.

I purchased Crazy Love along with the accompanying DVD several months ago, read the book fairly quickly, but didn’t get around to going through the DVD until yesterday afternoon. What I ran across in chapter 5 of the DVD so startled me that I just had to share it with you … check it out:

“Just read the Bible – don’t accept everything you’ve been fed outside of it.”

Seems simple enough … doesn’t it?

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

51 thoughts on “Francis Chan: Are Your Beliefs Biblical?

  1. Terry says:

    Francis Chan is great. You may want to read “Forgotten God” also. I quoted a couple of pages from it on my blog a couple of months ago at You may be interested in it, too.

  2. So true. I love the way Chan puts it. He doesn’t bash anyone or cram something down your throat or condemn people. He just makes you really think about what you believe.

    Of course, in churches of Christ, we want to say, “Yeah, we told you so! That’s what we’ve been saying for years!” But at the same time, we need to look at our own beliefs and compare them with what Scripture actually says, and not what we want it to say. Are we afraid to do this?

    Thanks for posting this!

    • WesWoodell says:

      You’re right. A friend sent me a link to a post by Patrick Mead discussing this very topic … here it is if you want to check it out:

    • davenyusa says:

      “He doesn’t bash anyone or cram something down your throat or condemn people”
      HE DOESN’T?
      I get to differ.
      This guy spooks me.

    • Patti Snee says:

      I agree completely. I have grown up in the Church of Christ and am so happy to learn that Francis is Biblical in his teaching on Baptism – but I believe so many in the Church of Christ need to be corrected too and can learn so much from the loving attitude of Francis Chan- he comes in love, not being argumentative, or harsh or condemning – just gently encouraging us to that true martyr spirit of self sacrificing love for your brother’s and sisters in Christ – being willing to give up all for Christ and living a life of evangelism – trying to convert as many to Christ as possible. This is encouraging me to go beyond the attitude often in the COC of let’s cross the t’s and dot the i’s and feel right because we have no instrumental music, and we get it right on Baptism, and have the correct name on the door – but in the words of scripture if you give your body to be burned, but have not love it profits you nothing. I fully embrace Francis as my brother in Christ from whom I am learning a great deal.

  3. Royce says:

    Francis Chan is one of the most gifted preacher/teachers of our day. He calmly teaches truth as he sees it.

    I understand and agree with his teaching on repentance and baptism and his put down of the “sinners prayer”. It does shock some people and change their minds about Chan when they learn he is a 5 point Calvinist.

    Whatever the “brand”, thank God for Francis Chan and for his contribution to the Christian community these last few years.

    Royce Ogle

    • WesWoodell says:

      I didn’t know for sure if he was a Calvinist or not … I saw an interview he did with Mark Driscoll a couple of weeks ago so I was wondering … he is a great teacher though.

    • begintolive says:


      To call someone a Calvinist is a pretty serious statement. Do you have proof to validate this statement or is it merely one’s opinion? I can honestly say that I have read every Francis Chan book published to date and have also listened to podcasts and have only discerned Francis to be a Christ Follower who is on a mission to fulfill the Great Comission.

      Correct me if I am wrong but, a Calvinist would be someone who believed in the doctrine of predestination and the irresitability of grace. Clearly from what I have read this is not the case with Francis’s teachings.

      Could you please help me to understand why this is accusation is being made? What are you discerning?

      Thank You,


      • WesWoodell says:

        Francis is not a Calvinist – I was able to verify that this past year.

      • Royce says:

        Is Francis Chan a Calvinist as I claimed here? Yes. Francis Chan founded Eternity Bible College. Not only Francis Chan, but every person who teaches in the class room must sign this statement of faith (

        The sad thing is that some of you guys speak of Calvinists as if they are evil. I remind you that almost all of the most well known missionary pioneers of modern times were Calvinists. It appears to me that some of the harshest critics of Calvinism don’t really know what Calvinists believe and how that belief informs their lives and ministries.


      • WesWoodell says:

        Hi Royce – I lived in San Francisco for about 4 years before moving to my current home in St Louis. The last year I was in SF, Francis moved in up the road from me and we became aquainted. He came to my office several times, we met for lunch several times, and I spent nearly every weekend with him ministering to the poor in downtown San Francsico along with others. I’ve sat across a table from him and spoken with him about his theology – he is not a strict Calvinist. He believes a couple of the points of TULIP, but not all of them.

        I imagine there is an overseeing board that crafted the statement of faith for Eternity Bible College just as there normally is for most Bible colleges. From what I know of Cornerstone in Simi Valley, it wouldn’t surprise me if most on that board weren’t graduates of John MacArthur’s Masters College (a sectarian, Calvinist school). It would be incorrect to cite Eternity’s statement on their website as the definitive statement of faith for brother Chan just as it would be incorrect to use Harding University’s statement of faith in that way for James Harding. You are perpetuating a popular Internet rumor that is not entirely true.

      • Royce says:

        Wes, I invite you and the others here to listen to the following audio. He certainly doesn’t sound like a free will guy.. (

        I have listened to many hours of his teaching, sure sounds like a Reformed guy to me. I read an article where he recommended books by David Platt, John Piper, etc. There was a third I can’t remember but all of them are Calvinists.

        I really don’t think this should be such a big issue. He is a great Bible teacher and he probably lives out what he teaches better than any preacher I know. He will be a hit at the Tulsa Workshop this spring. He is a great man of God. Not perfect, but a great man.

      • Matt Kadlec says:

        Wes and Royce,

        Thank You for a great conversation. Wes thank you for fact checking this. Honestly this is the first time I have ever heard the term “Calvinist.” I did a quick google search to find out what it meant.

        I have never saw David or Francis in the light. I see them both has being true followers of Christ…and yes, much of what they teach does seem radical to cultural christianity but, if you go right back to the Bible the Cost of being a Disciple or follower of Christ required Radical Abandonment, Devotion, and Sacrifice. Is this the message we are being taught in today’s church? Not Always. Does it need to be the message that is taught? Absolutely.

        3 years ago I received the call to become a Pastor…or as I like to call it a Trainer. Because I see myself as someone who is going to be teaching Jesus’s message ALONE and training others to make disciples, who make disciples. My concern is not going to be how many members do we have, how big is our congregation, my concern is are we making disciples, who make disciples?

        After prayerful consideration I decided that I did not want to attend just any “Christian” school because many are teaching a watered down gospel…I wanted to attend a school where the gospel was the heartbeat of their training and everything revolved around it. As such I decided to enroll in Eternity Bible College and I must say that in every document I have read, or conversation I have had with an EBC Staff member, I have found them to be nothing other than a Bible Teaching School.

        I don’t know how I will pay for that schooling but, God does. I have fundraising letters to send and it took awhile for God to break down the walls of Pride in my life.

        Again I thank you for this conversation.


      • Royce says:

        Matt, I’m sure you are right about Eternity teaching the truth. And, I’m also sure that you will soon learn what a Calvinist is. If you read their statement of beliefs, if you agree with all of them, guess what, You are a Calvinist! LOL

        I wish you great success in your education and ministry.


      • begintolive says:


        Perhaps to be Calvinist is an innocent thing and I am overexagerrating when I say this but, I think at this point in our conversation it would be in all of our best interest to revisit Romans 14:1-12.

        To call one a Calvinist I believe gives John Calvin the recognition. I guess I just cringe because I know for me personally, and I think it would be safe to speak for Francis and David that we want to be recognized as Diciples, true Christ Followers. Not simply hearers of the word but, doers of the word. To be called a Calvinist feels like an insult because it is not who I am…my identity is found in Christ and Christ alone…I am a Christ Follower aka Disciple and my theology is His theology.

        I would definitely appreciate your prayers as I continue my training for His mission.



    • Patti Snee says:

      I don’t get Calvinism at all from Francis Chan – an I have watched him a great deal. To me the message he is preaching makes absolutely no sense if he is a Calvinist.

  4. Great post. I think I’m going to share this one. Thank so much, Wes!

  5. dlee says:

    The truth is the truth….I’m not saying it ,God is, and he’s the one to decide how we are saved. Baptism is how we get in Christ and receive the Holy Spirit. It’s like Naaman the leper…..He was told to dip 7 times …he wasn’t cleansed after 1-6 times but the 7th time. WE many not understand stand it but must obey our loving God.

    • WesWoodell says:

      Can’t argue with that … thanks for the comment Daniel.

    • K. Rex Butts says:

      I agree that baptism is the normative means in the Bible through which one enters into Christ, the church, a life of assurance in Christ, etc… However, to say “Baptism is how we get in Christ and receive the Holy Spirit” needs to be nuanced. This statement is true of Acts 2.38. But in Acts 10, we have an account of people receiving the Spirit prior to baptism and in Acts 19 we have an account of people who must have hands laid upon them after their baptism in Jesus’ name to receive the Spirit. Which is right…do we receive the Spirit before, in, or after baptism? Well, the answer to that question depends more on which passage of scripture I want to proof-text. My point is not to diminish the importance and necessity of baptism. However…and this is one way in which I my view has taken somewhat of a different course than traditional CoC doctrine…I think we make too much of “when” or “at what exact point” we receive the salvation (which is what the reception of the Spirit represents, cf. Eph 1.13-14). Instead of trying to determine at what point, I believe we ought to just obey God’s call to repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and trust God to keep his promise of salvation whether he wants to give that before, in, or after Baptism.

      Grace and peace,


      • mattdabbs says:


        Wasn’t the order of things different in those passages…not to show when the person was saved but to show those around them (Peter and others) that God was at work and accepting these people so that they would be willing to baptize them? That is how I have seen Acts 10…God gave Cornelius the Spirit not as a normative text to answer the question when do we receive the Spirit but to show Peter that God had accepted him so Peter could in good conscience baptize him. Acts 19 is a little harder to explain.

      • K. Rex Butts says:


        Yes…that is how I see the passage in Acts 10 as well. I am mentioning the three different orders just to try and back people off who want to say the precise moment of when people receive the Spirit is so clear cut in the book of Acts. My point again is not to diminish the place and necessity of baptism but to hopefully get us beyond the singular concern of at what precise point are people saved in relation to their baptism and instead just trust God to save and do what he says. IMO, that singular focus in the CoC of trying to nail down the precise moment of when people are saved in relation to baptism has somehow allowed us to miss other very important aspects of baptism. For example, discipleship (Rom 6) and oneness in Christ (Gal 3). Did we major in the minors while missing the majors? That is all I am trying to get people to consider yet there are still some (perhaps many) in our fellowship who want to reduce the focus of baptism to that one question.

        I hope that explains the context of my remarks a little more.

        Grace and peace,


      • Jen says:

        Could not agree with this more..

  6. K. Rex Butts says:

    He is one of many in the “Evangelical” stream of Christianity coming to such conclusions. I just recently finished reading the book “Transforming Conversions” by Gordon T. Smith (an Evangelical theologian, pastor, and seminary lecturer) who defends repentance and baptism as the normative biblical means in which seekers are initiated into Christ, the church, and conversion journey (understanding conversion journey as a transformative process rather than a punctilear event). In fact, he devotes an entire chapter each to repentance and baptism.

    Of course, with great welcome, his challenge to biblically understand the place and purpose of repentance and baptism is also a challenge to Churches of Christ. Though the CoC has retained the language of repentance and baptism in conversion rather than adopting the sinner’s prayer, repentance and baptism (in my judgment) has been reduced to the same singular and narrow function of being about “getting saved”. That is, with few notable exceptions, repentance and baptism have no greater function in the CoC than assuring the convert of their ticket to heaven. Consequently, repentance and baptism have litle to do with becoming a disciple in the CoC’s traditional understanding of the “plan of salvation.” So Smith’s book is a challenge to even our own fellowship.

    Grace and peace,


    • WesWoodell says:

      Thanks for the comment, Rex. I think some in our fellowship have made baptism into something it isn’t, almost worshiping it instead of Jesus. What would we call that … “baptizolatry”?

      Sounds like a good book – thanks for the tip and comment 🙂

    • Well put. We are so eager to dunk them in the water, and then we put them on a pew. Baptism is just the beginning, not the destination. If transformation doesn’t continue to occur, baptism is pointless.

  7. ATF says:

    This is an extremely good message. It seems to me that those who tend to press their particular religious views are the least secure therein, and are usually just backing up whatever their pastor or teacher has preached, while the mature tend to allow the scripture to speak for itself and leave room for self-discovery.

    Christ demonstrated this method well, among other places, in Luke 10:25-37 and Matthew 16:13-20, referring an inquirer back to scripture and leading His apostles to the truth by questioning and reasoning with them.

  8. Aaron Miller says:

    I’m so glad you posted this, Wes. “What must we do to be saved” was a topic of discussion revisited twice this week between me and my friend, John.

    John and I were discussing another friend who had recently come to faith and said the sinner’s prayer. Something I pointed out to him was how someone should have sat down with him and studied with him about baptism that day!

    Of course my friend assumed I meant “baptism is essential for receiving the Holy Spirit.” But what I have tried to convey to him is that – Trying to dissect when a person receives the Spirit is pointless. Asking, “What’s the minimum I must do to be saved?” is the wrong attitude. The Bible doesn’t break it down and say, “After you leave the water the Holy Spirit enters your heart and you’re forgiven.” Nor does it say, “After you repent you’ve been saved, now go be baptized.”

    I can’t breakdown a process what the Bible doesn’t. All I can say is that our examples of a person coming to faith in Christ were “immediately” followed by baptism. We should take the same posture if we want to follow the scriptures.

    Look at Peter on Cornelius’ family in Acts 10. The Bible says, “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

    “Then Peter said, ‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.’ So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.”

    Now I don’t know if this and the Day of Pentecost were special exceptions to the rule for being saved, but I do know that baptism was the next thing Peter said after he saw that the Spirit was “poured out” on them.

    Read Philip and the Ethiopian in Acts 8. The eunuch obviously was instructed about baptism while Philip shared the gospel with him, and he obviously had an eagerness for it because the next thing he says is, “‘Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?’ And he gave orders to stop the chariot.” If we are to teach the gospel the same way Philip did we will instill an eagerness for immersion in the message just as he did.

    Here again, I’m not dissecting the process to say the Spirit wouldn’t enter the eunuch until he was baptized, because the Bible doesn’t do that. But look at this…I saw this when I was studying the Bible with my freshly converted friend. – The Spirit didn’t take Philip away until “When they came up out of the water.” That tells me his task of sharing the gospel wasn’t complete with this man until he had baptized him! This tells me immersion is important.

    Again…Dissecting the process to figure out the exact moment someone is saved is not Biblical. Just doing it in faith is.

    You are spot on Rex.

    – Aaron

  9. Tulsawitness says:

    Rex don’t confuse the “Coming on” of the Spirit, as described in Acts 10 & 19, with the Holy Spirit “Coming in”. One was about a manifestion prophesy and the other was about in-dwelling.

    Scriptire is clear that the Gift of the Ho;y Spirit (as in in-dwelling”…the Spirit living in us) comes at Baptism.

    I don’t think the Church is as guilty on Baptising and putting them in the pew as they are about not baptising enough people. The Church as a whole has stopped evangelising.

    But just to be clear; I think we should be doing all of Matt 28:19 & 20

    • K. Rex Butts says:


      I am sorry but I think your making a difference between “coming on” and “coming in” is a difference external to the text of Acts. The Spirit in Acts 2 is being poured out “upon” (coming on) all flesh there as well. If scripture is so clear that the Spirit is always received at baptism, why did Paul need to lay hands on the 12 in Ephesus for them to receive the Spirit? All of the conversion narratives in Acts (including chapter 2) are told to show how the gospel promise of Acts 1.8 are fulfilled. Thus, when we ask of the conversion narratives the question of at what point does one receive the Spirit or at what point is one “saved” we are asking a question beyond the original purpose. That does not mean we cannot gain insight to such questions by looking at the conversion narratives but it should keep us from elevating one narrative (Acts 2) above the others in an effort to answer our question and not the question being raised by the text itself (how did the gospel move from the Apostles into all the world?).

      As I said in my other comment, I have no interest in diminishing the importance and necessity of baptism. However, based on what the entire text tells us (esp, Acts 2, 10, and 19), God is not as interested in defining the precise moment of when one becomes saved as the CoC/Restoration Movement has been. The obsession with trying to define the precise moment of when one becomes saved seems to be done at the expense of straining scripture beyond its original intent. Of course, there are plenty of other denominations guilty of the same hermeneutical strains when pressing other issues that have become their hobby-horse.

      Grace and peace,


  10. Tulsawitness says:

    Sorry Rex, but yes there is a difference between the “coming on” and the Coming in”. “Coming on” had to do with the manifestation of the Spirit as described in Acts. I’m not going to spend the time here to explain all the differences because that kind of thing is what keeps us from spending the time sharing with others.But I am not trying to make any point of “The precise moment of salvation”. Saving grace comes from God and His word tells us to repent and be baptised. Plain and simple.

    Now you can “beat up the “CoC/Restoration Movement” all you want. You can point out the many ways they have been “guilty of hermeneutical strains”. But all that does is point out your feelings towards them and effects your judgment.

    I encourage just doing what God’s Will and Word says and let others argue over “hermeneutical strains”. Let’s get back to “Seeking and Saving”.

    • K. Rex Butts says:


      As you comment in anonymity making the accusation against me:

      “Now you can “beat up the “CoC/Restoration Movement” all you want. You can point out the many ways they have been “guilty of hermeneutical strains”. But all that does is point out your feelings towards them and effects your judgment.”

      Haven’t you just passed judgment?

      Since when did critical reflection become “beat[ing] up”?

      Grace and peace,


  11. Tulsawitness says:

    I just re-read my post trying to look at it from your view to see where I was “making the accusation against” you, and as I re-read it could see my cutting and accusing tone. For that I am really sorry. I assure you it was not my intent to be harmful. Now that I read it from that point of view I feel bad for posting it. So please accept my heartfelt regret. Please excuse my tone.

    Let’s just move on and maybe we can agree that others need God’s saving grace.

    BTW, it is not my intent to be posting in “anonymity”. Believe it or not I am trying to start a Blog myself and in doing so it somehow logged me in as Tulsawitness (something to do with something I did in setting up my blog). Bottom line, I am not very computer savey…LOL

    I am Lynn Stringfellow

    • K. Rex Butts says:


      Your apology is accepted. Further more, your last comment shows great humility on your part…something to be commended and modeled by us all.

      For the record, my intent is not to be unnecessarily critical of the CoC/Restoration Movement. I do believe there are times when certain criticism is warranted. However, I am more than happy to be affiliated with my restoration heritage and I love the Restoration Movement has taught repentance and baptism as the biblical response to the grace of God in Christ…since that seems to be consistent with the biblical witness (for which Chan and others are beginning to see as well).

      Blessings on your blog ministry…I for one, enjoy the blessings of the blog world.

      Grace and peace,


    • ATF says:

      Lynn, you’ve taught this same message ever since I’ve known you, for at least 6 years. This has been one the strongest and most consistent ideas of our whole ministry, to let God speak for himself and to read Scripture plainly and with common sense. I’m so grateful to have had that kind of instruction.

      I look forward to reading your blog for your insights and encouragement, and to be entertained by how many people you accidentally offend. I wonder if it’s time to start refining your prose a bit, lol.

  12. Jen says:

    Love Francis Chan. Incredibly gifted man. Yes, Royce is right, he is a Calvinist.

    This has been an interesting thread, Wes. Thank you for posting. And it’s been quite interesting following all of the responses.

    I have to be honest, as an ex CoC-er, I had to roll my eyes and sigh as I knew those in the Church of Christ would be all over this one.. I think (and let me just say I am certainly no theologian or expert) what Chan is trying to say is that we should step outside of what we’ve been fed and “what we’ve always done” and examine God’s word for ourselves.. A stretch for any individual or denomination. Id say if anything, this has more implications for Churches of Christ, not less.

    I think what Rex has said throughout the thread is definitely on point. My opinion is that [some] have made baptism, in an attempt to make salvation into a formula that we can identify and promptly check off of our list, an act of duty instead of true *worship*. I can tell you this as someone who’s baptism experience was exactly this, and as a baby christian who knew no different, I fell in line accordingly.

    No one (not even those in the Chan/Driscoll calvinist club) is denying the importance of baptism. Why is it then that [some] influenced by the Restoration Movement seemingly ignore passages like Acts 10:43-44, Romans 10:9-11, & Ephesians 2:8? Feels like agenda pushing..

    Just my 2 cents.

  13. K. Rex Butts says:


    You made the observation of… “My opinion is that [some] have made baptism, in an attempt to make salvation into a formula that we can identify and promptly check off of our list, an act of duty instead of true *worship*.”

    That is spot on and is exactly what I am trying to get beyond. That doesn’t mean I believe baptism is any less important and necessary in relation to salvation (God’s redemptive purposes) as some might be inclined to think. It just moves baptism beyond a subtle form of intellectually-based justification (I’m saved because I am confident in my understanding of the doctrine of baptism).

    Grace and peace,


  14. Tyler Ellis says:

    I hadn’t watched this episode yet, but years ago I listened to Chan’s sermon on baptism. Go to and download: “08/26/07 The Holy Spirit, part 3”

  15. […] Honestly, he is the first leader outside of Restoration Movement churches I have ever heard say or teach this, and I was quite shocked to hear him do so (so were many others as revealed in the ensuing discussion). […]

  16. Lindsay says:

    The people hearing the WORD were CONVICTED OF SIN THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT. No man can confess that Jesus is the CHRIST except BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. After they were convicted by THE HOLY SPIRIT of their sin, they gladly excepted the WORD which they received and were Baptized for the remission of sin, and after being baptized with WATER AND SPIRIT, they then RECEIVED the HOLY SPIRIT( as it descended on Christ after John baptised him, then it remained on him.)
    READ: JOHN 1:1
    John 3:5-7
    John 5:36-43
    John 6:63-64
    John 8:47
    Acts 2:36-38, 2:41-42, 2:47
    Acts 4:19
    Acts 8:12-13
    Acts 8:35-38

  17. Royce says:

    Yes, I think you are overexagerrating Matt. And, Rex, you are precisely right as is Jen.

    To verify what Rex and Jen are saying, ask 25 long time church of Christ members how they know they are saved? My guess is far too many of them would mention baptism first. Our confidence should be in Christ and his promises. One of the reasons so many of our people have been baptized more than once (many 4 or 5 times..) is that they expected baptism to do something for them it could not.

  18. Romanseight says:

    This is from the statement.

    “We believe that before the foundation of the world God freely and graciously chose
    those individuals whom He would save. He did this based upon His own sovereign choice and
    not based upon any foresight or anticipation of an individual’s decision. The grace of God
    encompasses the gift of salvation and the means of receiving the gift. All and only those whom
    the Father draws will come in faith, and all and only those who come in faith will be received
    by the Father.”

    This sounds like a calvinist to me. Yes, I use the term calvinist, not to make anyone a follower of a person, but because it’s clearly difinitive, and makes it easier to distinguish one’s beliefs about God.

  19. […] from a site called The Overflow.  This is from a post that talks about the sinners […]

  20. clay says:

    We believe that before the foundation of the world God freely and graciously chose
    those individuals whom He would save. He did this based upon His own sovereign choice and
    not based upon any foresight or anticipation of an individual’s decision. The grace of God
    encompasses the gift of salvation and the means of receiving the gift. All and only those whom
    the Father draws will come in faith, and all and only those who come in faith will be received
    by the Father (Romans 8:28-30; Ephesians 1:4, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:1-2; John 6:37,
    40, 44; Acts 13:48). This is from Chan’s statement of faith. Totally Calvinist! And He’s an awesome speaker and God uses him in a great way!

Leave a Reply to WesWoodell Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: