Lifeway Tract on Salvation--right or wrong?

[Karen]

Tom,
You joined in briefly in the thread at the end of March, "Is This Salvation?"
rjprince took the viewpoint that there is no requirement for salvation to "repent from sin"?
I said that repentance is part of salvation.

I take it that you consider repentance a component of salvation?

Karen

 

[Tom Butler]

Karen, I do believe that repentance is part of salvation. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. They go together. Both are given by the Holy Spirit, who also regenerates and convicts.

I recognize that some people hold that repentance, which involves Godly sorrow for, and turning from, sin, is a work, and will argue for faith-only.

But I believe that a faith separated from repentance is incomplete. I also think that true repentance will be naturally followed by saving faith.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

I don't see repentance as a work.However I don't think we can truly repent until we have some understanding of who God is and who Jesus Christ is.I don't think we understand the depths of our sin until we ask Christ into our heart,after we have done that then we can truly repent.If I am unsaved I am acting IAW my true nature and am not even truly aware that I have anything to repent of.

If one does not truly repent after salvation I would wonder about the salvation experience just as I would if the person did not have a change in character,if we did'nt see some evident works I would wonder.I know we don't do works to get saved but we work after we are saved to please God and in case anybody don't know it, it benefits us and our walk with The Lord Jesus christ.
My two cents.

 

[Tom Butler]

Plain Old Bill said

.I don't think we understand the depths of our sin until we ask Christ into our heart,after we have done that then we can truly repent.

This is a novel view to me: Repentance AFTER salvation. I think I understand what you're trying to say--that with salvation comes a spiritual discernment than enables one to see sin more clearly.

My own view is that such discernment comes with Holy Spirit regeneration and conviction, which enables repentance and faith, which leads to salvation.

I am with you that true conversion should produce some tangible evidence, such as turning from sin.

 

[Pipedude]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
Pipedude, I think it is more accurate theologically to say that the believing is expressed by an act rather than "takes the shape" of an outward act.

Maybe. Are the words "expressed" and "takes the shape" theological terms? I'm trying to discern the difference and cannot at this stage.

In my own conversion, hardly paradigmatic, I was under conviction for at least a week. I sat on the second pew so nothing would hinder me from walking the aisle. (Hardly any aisle left by then!) I stepped out as soon as the music began, told the pastor "I want to be saved." He asked me a couple of questions to ascertain that I knew what was going on, ("Do you know who Jesus is, do you know why he died on the cross?") and he had me repeat a sinner's prayer after him phrase by phrase. Any method would have worked--I was ready to be saved.

God did not speak peace to my heart until that moment. Even then it wasn't dramatic, but the burden rolled off. I did not believe anything when I bowed my head that I had not believed for the entire week previously, but the Holy Spirit had revealed to me that I had stiff-armed God all of my little life (I was thirteen) and I was condemned; the only way I knew to surrender was to publicly walk the aisle.

It's hard, in my case, to distinguish the faith from the act. And that seems to be how most people are converted, though certainly not all.

 

[gb93433]

Typical SBC, 1,2,3 pray after me. Should it surprise us when only one out of three SBC members attend church on any given Sunday.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Typical SBC, 1,2,3 pray after me. Should it surprise us when only one out of three SBC members attend church on any given Sunday.

Seems to me that Pipedude just shared a humble and genuine testimony of his salvation. IMO it is rude to then mock that testimony. Respect is in order, even if you disagree with the method used by the preacher in his salvation.

The use of a prayer in personal evangelism is quite old, and has been used by many groups, Arminian and Calvinist and everyone in between, not just the SBC. I can document this method being used by Presbyterian missionaries (and so, Calvinist) George Pierson and his wife early in the 20th century here on my island of Hokkaido, Japan.

 

[Tom Butler]

Let me chase a small rabbit right here.

I have seen Romans 10:13 misquoted several times in several different threads. Here's the misquote: "..whosoever shall call on the Lord shall be saved."

However, the correct reading is "..whosoever shall call on the NAME of the Lord shall be saved."

The verses following seem to say that calling on the Name and calling on the Lord are the same thing. I yield here to the scholars for exegesis. Is there a difference between calling on the Name and calling on the Lord? You Greek scholars, is there anything in the original that would make a difference?

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Tom Butler:
Let me chase a small rabbit right here.

I have seen Romans 10:13 misquoted several times in several different threads. Here's the misquote: "..whosoever shall call on the Lord shall be saved."

However, the correct reading is "..whosoever shall call on the NAME of the Lord shall be saved."

The verses following seem to say that calling on the Name and calling on the Lord are the same thing. I yield here to the scholars for exegesis. Is there a difference between calling on the Name and calling on the Lord? You Greek scholars, is there anything in the original that would make a difference?

The word "name" is accusative, so it is simply the direct object of the verb. The word "Lord" is possessive. The verb here is epikaleomai, the etymology of which is "to call on." It most often is used to describe the name of a person: "his name is called...." However, it can mean simply to call out to God, as it probably does here and in the parallel passage of Acts 2:21, where Peter quotes Joel 2:29 and applies it to salvation from sin.

Here is an interesting parallel. Check out Gen. 4:26, "And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." The phrase in this case can mean, "to call themselves by the name of the Lord." So with that as a basis it is possible to interpret Rom. 10:13 as meaning someone who decides to align themselves with the Lord as one of His own!

Now concerning the problem at hand, note that in Rom. 10:14 it clearly distinguishes between believing and calling. So the calling and believing are not synonyms. In the logical progression of the passage, one calls on the One he has already believed in. So Romans 10:13 is not teaching salvation by means of prayer.

 

[Pipedude]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Typical SBC, 1,2,3 pray after me.

In fact, it was a SBC.

If someone like that walks an aisle, what should a pastor do instead of the 1-2-3 routine?

 

[Plain Old Bill]

He should immediately get you enrolled in a reformed seminary and see that you stay until you have earned a ThD at which time you may call upon the Lord for salvation.

 

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by Tom Butler:
On several occasions I have run across a tract published by Lifeway Christian Resources (an arm of the SBC) on the plan of salvation. For the most part it is pretty solid, dealing with sin, repentance and faith.

When it gets to the "clincher," it says the following: "To have the forgiveness of God and the assurance of heaven, and Jesus as your own personal savior and Lord, pray sincerely the following prayer as you repent of your sins and trust Jesus and Him only to save you."

The follows what the tract describes as the Salvation Prayer: "Dear Jesus, I believe that you died on the cross for my sins and that You arose from the grave. I now ask you to forgive me of my sins and save my soul. Amen."

Here's what jumped out at me: "..pray the following prayer as you repent of your sins and trust Jesus and Him only to save you.'

To me, it seems that the tract has added something to repentance and faith--praying. I know, I know, call on the name of the Lord and you'll be saved.

Am I nit-picking here? As I said, everything else in the tract is on the mark.

How about adding "of your sins" to repentance, as well, for something added to the tract? What is the problem with a 'salvation' as offered in John 3:16-18; John 3:36; John 6:47; I John 5:10-13; Gen. 15:6; etc. Over 400 times, the NT speaks of the noun, faith and/or the verb, believe, both of which are the same root word. John uses the word believe 99 times in his gospel, alone. This also happens to be the only book written specifically and explicitly for the purpose of getting people saved.

30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31 NKJV)

John uses these words, as well another dozen or so times in his first Epistle, the only book said to be written specifically for the two-fold assurance, perhaps with the additional effect of a cotinuing to believe after believing.

9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son. 10 He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. 11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life,[c] and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. (I John 5:9-13 NKJV)

Although in fairness, there is some small question as to the last phrase here in verse 13, that to me, nevertheless, is only "added gravy". Paul wrote, in Romans 1:16-17, these words;

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,[a] for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.” (NKJV)

That should settle the issue, IMO. The false additions of various schemata to rephrase the words of Scripture regarding salvation and that being a gift, are nothing less, to me, than adding to the Word of God, as spoken of in Revelation 22. I am utterly astounded at those who are so concerned about "taking away" from Scripture, especially as to some who support a particular version or versions, who blithely add to without reservation, albeit unwittingly, perhaps, for some, and others who are so concerned with one who would "add to", but have no problem with "taking away", doing that, at the same time. Whether as to "text", or "teaching", in this regard, what is the difference?

In summary, Yes! Adding "praying" to this is no less an error, than some other things could be. The Late Lewis Sperry Chafer once wrote words to the effect of, (and I'm attempting to cite from memory, here) "The word 'believe' represents all a sinner can and must do , to be saved."

Get that? It is not, "All you have to do is believe in Jesus Christ, to be saved; rather, it is All you CAN do is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ!" That, and that alone is what saves. Why muddy the waters?
In His grace,
Ed

 

[J.R.Maddox]

If someone like that walks an aisle, what should a pastor do instead of the 1-2-3 routine?

We ALWAYS go to a counseling room in order to clarify the gospel. We share with our folks the decision to inquire about salvation and to be in prayer. Their baptism is their profession of faith. Of course if we have dealt with them in the home already we share their decision and then they are later baptized for a ppof.

J

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by John of Japan:

The use of a prayer in personal evangelism is quite old, and has been used by many groups, Arminian and Calvinist and everyone in between, not just the SBC.

Show just one verse in the Bible where Jesus taught his disciples that type of evangelism.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Pipedude:
If someone like that walks an aisle, what should a pastor do instead of the 1-2-3 routine?

When someone tell sme they want to be saved or be a Christian I ask them, "Why?" When I get a favorable answer indicating they understand in a simple way then I tell them of the cost of following Jesus and what lies ahead for them.

That kind of pressure nonsense is nothing more than an effort to pressure people to make a decision. Just simply tell them what Jesus told his disciples.

God will not be mocked by our ways to imitate him. His ways are not our ways. His ways are so much higher than our's. God is God. He is not our servant we are His servants.

When God's people begin to pray they will see God hand unlike they have ever seen before. They won't need Nashville's holy spirit but God's Holy Spirit will do things one could not even imagine.

So much of religion is man's doing but when God does it is like a freight train that will not stop.

When one understands in the NT what it meant to follow Jesus that meant he could have lost his life or his business taken away or boycotted.

Following Christ was an open confession naming Christ as Lord. By naming Christ as Lord it meant that the emperor was no longer lord but Jesus. For that the emperor could have a believer executed. That is following Christ.

It is not a prayer which saves. It is Christ who saves. Salvation is not in a prayer but in a person--Christ.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John of Japan:

The use of a prayer in personal evangelism is quite old, and has been used by many groups, Arminian and Calvinist and everyone in between, not just the SBC.

Show just one verse in the Bible where Jesus taught his disciples that type of evangelism. </font>[/QUOTE]Um, think about that for a minute. Don't you believe that any request of any kind to Jesus while He was on the earth was a prayer? I do. So for just one example, the thief on the cross prayed to Jesus at the time of his salvation saying, "Remember me."

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
We can't know their hearts at anytime. We just trust our best judgement based upon what we see. It is between God and the person whether they are saved or not.

If a person believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior amd calls on Him as Lord and Savior he is saved,then he is able to repent."The sinners Prayer"(I've seen and heard at least a hundered different official versions)is for the benefit of the new believer.The prayer fixes the new converts salvation in thier mind and heart.Hopefully whoever made the introduction will know enough to take the new convert through enough scripture so he/she will understand what took place.Also hopefully whoever made the introduction will also follow through and see to it the new convert is properly discipled.

The tract does as much as a tract can do.It is up to the new convert to follow the instruction in the tract.

I know we want everything to be complete and perfect but that is not real life.We can't practically issue 5 study versions of the Bible,Strongs & Youngs concordances,3 Bible dictionaries, and our favorite books on doctrine or theology, along with a couple of our favorite sets of commentaries.

When we pass out tracts ,sometimes we put them in phone booths,public restrooms,tables,bus seats and all kinds of places.We just need to get the best tracts we can and pray the Holy Spirit does the rest.That Lifeway tract seems to do the job.

Anything which makes salvation seem simple without the need for changing your life and living for Christ is harmful. It seems to be popular today to minimize the requirement for decipleship. That statement could be included in a sentence or two. It doesn't require complicated theology or exigesis.

 

[genesis12]

Good grief. Suddenly, everyone is an authority. And built into their authoritarian responses (see posts by gb93433) are presumptions, assumptions, railings ... it's enough to make one pray.

If I tell "youse guys" that we've had a turtle in our backyard for 11 years, and what we feed it, I'd receive 30 posts telling me what we're doing wrong.

Check out the gentle approaches and scriptural responses of John of Japan. That's where it's at.

 

[epistemaniac]

here is another perspective, one that seems worthy of consideration.... it is another "tract" albeit a longer one, and it's purpose is to debunk much of the evangelizing "techniques" of today's churches and their "altar calls" and for the "getting of a decision for Christ"... an excerpt from the tract says:

one may read thousands of pages of the history of the Christian Church without finding a single reference to the 'old-fashioned altar call' before the last century. Most Christians are surprised to learn that history before the time of Charles G. Finney (1792-1875) knows nothing of this type of 'invitation.' The practice of urging men and women to make a physical movement at the conclusion of a meeting was introduced by Mr. Finney in the second decade of the nineteenth century. Dr. Albert B. Dod, a professor of theology at Princeton Seminary at the time of Mr. Finney's ministry, pointed out the newness of the practice and showed that this method was without historical precedent. In his review of Finney's Lectures on Revival, Professor Dod stated that one will search the volumes of church history in vain for a single example of this practice before the 1820's, (7). Instead, history tells us that whenever the gospel was preached men were invited to Christ—not to decide at the end of a sermon whether or not to perform some physical action.

check out the rest of the tract at http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=509

what say ye?

blessings,
Ken

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
Um, think about that for a minute. Don't you believe that any request of any kind to Jesus while He was on the earth was a prayer? I do. So for just one example, the thief on the cross prayed to Jesus at the time of his salvation saying, "Remember me."

A prayer is an imperative of entreaty. A whole lot different than a 1,2,3 pray after me and you are in heaven nonsense.

Some have actually prayed the prayer many times. Did they get saved many times too.

Jesus never prayed to his disciples when he told them, "Come follow me."

When people came to Jesus requesting what they needed to do to be saved, when did he ever tell them to pray a prayer?