You can't see it. That's too bad.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Sinners Prayer
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
- Status
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Therefore, I'm reminiscing back to a predecessor of "the sinner's prayer" and adding it to the text of this article, as a thought-provoking (?) adaptation.
Adapted from: Evils of the Mourner’s Bench
(link to full original article) by H. Boyce Taylor, Sr.
...and editing it into Evils of the Mourner’s Bench (sinner's prayer(?), for the sake of discussion(?) or consideration.
The original article has more information and each of the original bullet points below have more comments under each one.
In part: II.
"The querist does not ask about this. But while we are on the subject we want to call attention to "The Evils of the Mourner's Bench (sinner's prayer(?)"
"1. It magnifies a bench ('decision') or "altar," (sinner's prayer(?) instead of magnifying Christ...
"2. The "mourner's bench" (sinner's prayer(?) puts mother or wife or a preacher (overenthusiastic, flesh-filled 'evangelists' bright ideas) as a mediator between the sinner and Christ...
"3. The first parable the Master gave was the parable of the sower...
"4. The contention of the "mourner's bench" (sinner's prayer(?) crowd is that it takes tears (signing a 'decision card', etc.) to save...
"5. The gospel that saves is a gospel of grace...
"6. The "mourner's bench" (sinner's prayer(?) magnifies seeking Christ instead of receiving Christ...
"7. The "mourner's bench" (sinner's prayer(?) belongs to a gospel of works...
"8. The "mourner's bench" (sinner's prayer(?) is another gospel from that Paul preached...
"9. The "mourner's bench" (sinner's prayer(?) gospel is Arminian and not Pauline...
"10. "Mourner's bench" (sinner's prayer(?) gospel is wholly a gospel of "confidence in the, flesh..."
"11. The "mourner's bench" (sinner's prayer(?) gospel is no gospel...
"12. The "mourner's bench" (sinner's prayer(?) manipulators (overenthusiastic, flesh-filled 'evangelists') and the Campbellites are exactly alike in a good many ways...
"13. Talking about altars (sinner's prayer(?),
Roman Catholics have altars (?),
Episcopalians have altars (?),
Methodists have altars (?),
the Masons have altars (?),
the heathen idolaters have altars (?),
Holy Rollers have altars (?);
but there are no altars (sinner's prayer(?)
in New Testament churches
(I sure hope to say not, for those that are making an effort to Worship God)...
"A throne of grace, not an "altar of prayer," (sinner's prayer(?) is the Bible form of sound words. All who speak of an "altar of prayer" (sinner's prayer(?) put works of the flesh somewhere, somehow in the place of the finished work of Christ.
"Altars (sinner's prayer(?) belong to ritualists and formalists.
"They (sinner's prayer(?) speak the language of Judaism, not of Calvary.
"When Jesus cried "it is finished" and the temple veil was rent from top to bottom, everything that an altar typified was fulfilled..."
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
That's a non answer. So that must mean that you do not have one. You keep making this unfounded claim but you never backup your words. All I see is that you really do not trust the scriptures.
But since we have been down this road a number of times and you still do not deal with the scripture I post I will leave you in the pit you have dug.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
I am curious as to what you think these words mean?
Rom 10:13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
And exactly how are they supposed to call on the Lord?
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Oh, yeah; you and I almost locked horns.
Wait a minute, Christians aren't supposed to have horns(?)
Anyway, we even agreed to disagree.
And, we're practically arch-enemies(!) lol.
I am trying to follow Salty's advice, but you won't let me.
Go back, read what you have written and why I respond to it by pointing out your man-centered theology, which emphasizes the human while ignoring God. All I need do is point to post #64 as my example. There you ignore the fact that God must make a person alive first. You ignore all of Romans before your ONE verse (taken out of context), which you then use to promote man's effort.
But, you seem blind and it seems a sure thing that no one here will open your eyes.
Keep posting your man-centered theology. I will keep pointing it out, and Salty will keep telling me he realizes you are wrong.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
You still ignore the scripture I post and claim that it is man-centered but as always fail to show how it is . That is just your opinion. You seem to think your word should be taken over what the bible says. With that in mind I will continue to point out what the foundation of your errant theology is and thus why you present theological error in your posts. See post # 57. When you look at the bible through a faulty grid, as you are doing, you will get a faulty understanding of the bible, which your posts show that you have.
Spend some time and look at the history of the theological grid you are using. Be honest with yourself. Ignoring the truth does not make it go away.
37818
Well-Known Member
All theology is man centered. Otherwise it could not be a -ology of any kind.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
With the one that got me banned, I still talk to them every day, but I try to put the Eternal Word under the view of their soul, in a way the Holy Spirit could use it, peradventure on them or someone else.
It is still an exercise in pretty boring redundancy.
Nothing could be as redundant as The Roman's Road editing out the fist half of Roman's 3, four times a day, though!
And, as if the second half of Romans is applicable to the lost, who have been dealt with by the Holy Spirit in conviction of their sin against God, already.
I don't miss it!
Salty has defined "Humanism" as a religion, in the way that they are beneficial to man, like the Free Agency of Man, or the Soul Liberty of the London Confession,
part we believe, too, only without the Depravity part, so it is valid for debate on the BB.
You hold to Total Depravity in a way that the two will never be compatible.
You're going make me have to c&p a long bombardment diatribe about Aminianism vs Calvinism to bore you silly!
That's it.
The twane shall never meet, as you know.
So, maybe just post positive Scriptures from your perspective, if you will.
I'd like to see those. The carrying on like two women gets me down. I had to bow out, for the Glory! of God!
It is still an exercise in pretty boring redundancy.
Nothing could be as redundant as The Roman's Road editing out the fist half of Roman's 3, four times a day, though!
And, as if the second half of Romans is applicable to the lost, who have been dealt with by the Holy Spirit in conviction of their sin against God, already.
I don't miss it!
Salty has defined "Humanism" as a religion, in the way that they are beneficial to man, like the Free Agency of Man, or the Soul Liberty of the London Confession,
part we believe, too, only without the Depravity part, so it is valid for debate on the BB.
You hold to Total Depravity in a way that the two will never be compatible.
You're going make me have to c&p a long bombardment diatribe about Aminianism vs Calvinism to bore you silly!
That's it.
The twane shall never meet, as you know.
So, maybe just post positive Scriptures from your perspective, if you will.
I'd like to see those. The carrying on like two women gets me down. I had to bow out, for the Glory! of God!
Last edited:
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Nope
God (Theos), study of (ology).
When man gets raised up as equal to or greater than God in any way shape or form, it becomes a man-centered view, not a God-centered view. Failure to acknowledge God as the cause of our salvation is a serious failure indeed.
Sliverhair, I have addressed all the scripture you have ever posted. The difference is that I always bring in the context, which annoys you to no end because it shows you how poorly you apprehend God's word.
I shall end with that note as you and I will not agree because we emphasize totally different beings.
23 him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay: Acts 2
13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him.
14 But ye denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted unto you,
15 and killed the Prince of life; whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. Acts 3
24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified. Acts 2
15 and killed the Prince of life; whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. Acts 3
40 And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation. Acts 2
23 And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people. Acts 3
Last edited:
Reference Pink on it:
"...And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment" (John 16:8). There is hardly a sentence in this Gospel which has been more generally misunderstood than the one just quoted. With rare exceptions this verse is understood to refer to the benign activities of the Holy Spirit among those who hear the Gospel. It is supposed to define His work in the conscience prior to conversion. It is regarded as a description of His gracious operations in bringing the sinner to see his need of a Savior. So firmly has this idea taken root in the minds even of the Lord’s people, it is difficult to induce them to study this verse for themselves—study it in the light of what precedes, study it in the light of the amplification which follows, study the terms employed, comparing their usage in other passages. If this be done carefully and dispassionately, we feel confident that many will discover how untenable is the popular view of it.
It should be very evident that something must be wrong if this verse be interpreted so as to clash with Christ’s explicit statement in John 14:17, "The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive." What then is the character of the "reproof" that is here spoken of? Is it an evangelical conviction wrought in the heart, or is it something that is altogether external? Almost all the older commentators regarded it as the former. We, with an increasing number of later writers, believe it is the latter. One of the leading lexicons of the twentieth century gives as the meaning of elencho, "to bring in guilty; to put to shame by proving one to be wrong; to convict with a view to condemnation and judgment, but not necessarily to convince; to bring in guilty without any confession or feeling of guilt by the guilty one."...........It is rather refutation by proofs, convicting by unanswerable arguments as an advocate, that is meant.".........."Here the Holy Spirit is not spoken of as dealing with individuals when He regenerates them and they believe, but as bringing conviction to the world because of sin. The Holy Ghost being here, convicts the world, i.e., what is outside where He is. Were there faith, He would be in their midst: but the world doth not believe. Hence Christ is, as everywhere in John, the standard for judging the condition of men" (Mr. W. Kelly)...."
37818
Well-Known Member
Duh. Wrong. Who does study, God or man?
- Status