The "Sinner's Prayer"

[bmerr]

Originally posted by I hate sin:
If the water spoken of in John 3:5 is water baptism. The thief on the cross would not be able to enter into the kingdom of God. Because he was not baptised; Jesus did not lie in the following scripture;
Luk 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

bmerr here. The thief on the cross has been dealt with. In short, he was saved, but he was not saved under the New Testament.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

DHK,

bmerr here. Wait a minute, I wasn't finished.

In the Great Commission, Jesus said that the gospel was to be preached (Mark 16:15), which was to include repentance and remission of sins (Luke 24:47). This message was to go to all nations (Mark 16:15), in all the world (Matt 28:19). Those who believed and were baptized would be saved. (Mark 16:16).

In Acts 2:38, the gospel was preached, and those who asked for instruction in what they should do were told to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Would you agree that this is the case?

I realize that we disagree on the reason for baptism. I have presented several Scriptures that give the purpose for baptism in the NT, and you have rejected them all. Would you present your case from Scripture as to the purpose of baptism in the New Testament?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

DHK,

bmerr here. You are correct in saying that the book of James deals primarily with practical Christian living.

James 1:18 states the simple fact that they had been begotten with the word of truth, without specific mention of baptism, as you said. There is also no specific mention of faith, repentance, or confession. Shall we conclude from their absence that they are not required for salvation?

A similar situation is found in Acts 16:34, where the jailer's entire experience of hearing, believing, repentance, and baptism are all summed up in the phrase, "...believing in God with all his house."

It's a blanket statement. It's actually called a synecdoche, a figure of speech which uses a part for the whole, or the whole for a part.

For example, if you drove up in a new car, and I said, "Hey, I like your new wheels!", you would understand that I liked the whole car, not just the wheels.

So yes, the recipients of James' letter had been begotten with the word of truth. This word of truth contained in part the command to be baptized for the remission of sins.

I'm not the one twisting the Scriptures, sir.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

To All,

bmerr here. The discussion thus far has been great, but I think we've wandered a bit from the topic of the thread, "The Sinner's Prayer".

Has anyone found any more Biblical support for it, or have we concluded that it is merely the invention of man?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[prophecynut]

bmerr

So where, oh where did it come from, if not the Bible? Who's idea was it? And how did it get so popular in such a short amount of time? I can't find any reference to a "sinner's prayer" anywhere dating before 1950 or so.

I wholeheartedly agree, it's not taught in the Bible. Preaching the gospel does not include telling people they must recognize themselves as sinners before coming to the cross. In their sinful state they are incapable of understanding their sinful nature. Only after the Holy Spirit changes their heart and convicts them of sin are they able to acknowledge they are sinners.

StefanM

Ephesians 2 (KJB)

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Salvation is by faith alone, no conditions are attached to it. Good works will follow faith verifying that the believer is truly in Christ. One can only come to faith in Christ by the will of God changing the heart of the believer.

The "should walk in them" is an error. "Should walk" makes the believer obligated to do good works without any guarantee they will be completed successfully. Hebrews were obligated to up hold the Law yet the failed repeatedly; the same would happen to Christians. "God hath before ordained" good works, if God has predestined good works then they will be completed successfully according to his will and not on the merit of the believer.

DHK
Faith and faith alone is what is required for one to be saved. Any other work (including baptism) is akin to spitting in the face of Jesus and telling him that his work was not sufficient enough to atone for our sins. But instead we had to help Jesus along with our baptism. What an insult to the King of Kings who sacrificed his life to pay the penalty for ALL of our sins; not just the sins that baptism could not remit. What heresy is this!!

Amen and amen!!

dianetavegia
Bmerr, the same word for water is not used every time. In the Nicodemus incident:
except a man be born of water and of the Spirit: these are, (twnv) (twlm) , "two words", which express the same thing, as Kimchi observes in many places in his commentaries, and signify the grace of the Spirit of God. The Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions read, "the Holy Spirit", and so Nonnus; and who doubtless is intended: by "water", is not meant material water, or baptismal water

This post is the KEY to understanding what is meant by "water" in John 3:2 - "I tell you the truth no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."

We know from John 4:13-14 that Jesus is the water "to eternal life." This water is a metaphor for the "Spirit of Christ" as in Romans 8:9 - "You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Jesus , he does not belong to Christ."

Quoting dianetavegia again: "born of water and of the Spirit: these are "two words", which express the same thing." Those two things are "Spirit of Christ" and "Spirit of God."

 

[StefanM]

Originally posted by prophecynut:


Salvation is by faith alone, no conditions are attached to it. Good works will follow faith verifying that the believer is truly in Christ. One can only come to faith in Christ by the will of God changing the heart of the believer.

The "should walk in them" is an error. "Should walk" makes the believer obligated to do good works without any guarantee they will be completed successfully. Hebrews were obligated to up hold the Law yet the failed repeatedly; the same would happen to Christians. "God hath before ordained" good works, if God has predestined good works then they will be completed successfully according to his will and not on the merit of the believer.

"Should walk" is merely a translation of an aorist subjunctive form of peripateo, which could be translated "[so that] we might walk." The KJV is just using 17th century English to say the same thing. It doesn't have to imply doubt.

One who has been born of God will exhibit good works; I agree with you here.

Nevertheless, I do not hold that one must be regenerated prior to faith. I see it more as enablement by the Holy Spirit [at the time of hearing the Word of God]*, but that's outside the realm of the discussion.

*(Romans 10:17)

 

[prophecynut]

"should walk" and "might walk" are the same, leaving plenty of room for doubt or chance which counterdicts God's sovereignty as plainly stated in works being predestine. Hello!

First you say: "one must be regenerated prior to faith" and then you say "enablement by the Holy spirit [at the time of hearing the Word of God]."

You like counterdicting the Word of God?

Faith and regeneration are simultaneous.

 

[StefanM]

I did NOT say "one must be regenerated prior to faith." I disagreed with that idea. I agree; faith and regeneration are simultaneous. At the moment one believes, one is born again. I was referring to the time right before believing. In that situation, I do not say that the person must be regenerated in order to believe (as some say); I say that the HS works on that person, leaving them the ability to believe or not to believe. If they believe, they are regenerated.

How do you think aorist subjunctives should be translated?

 

[prophecynut]

 

[bmerr]

P-nut and StefanM,

bmerr here. So the Holy Spirit must operate directly on the heart of the unregenerate to give him the ability to believe? Is that what you're saying?

Or is it that the Holy Spirit regenerates a person before he believes, which would be salvation by... what...arbitrary choice on God's part?

The Bible says that "...faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom 10:17). Not by some mystical work of the Holy Spirit, but by the hearing of the word of God that was brought to man by the Spirit.

StefanM said he disagreed with the idea that "one must be regenerated prior to faith" as P-nut advocated. "Idea" is the right word for it, all right; Man's idea.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[prophecynut]

Hearing the Word of God which is the gospel concerning Christ, conceivably may progress over years, drawing the indiviual to Christ. Or one may hear the Word of God in their early life and later at a older age hear the Word again and be saved. Others may hear the Word a couple of times and be zapped with the Holy Spirit, it is different for everyone. One must have cognition prior to the "mystical work" of the Holy Spirit or else the recipient would not know what hit him. At the time of conversion, believers will hear another segment of the Word of God and be born again, receiving faith at the same time.

The gospel spreads by someone planting the seed, others watering the seed and others pruning the branches, when the time is right God deposits the Holy Spirit and the tree begins to bloom.

 

[StefanM]

So the Holy Spirit must operate directly on the heart of the unregenerate to give him the ability to believe? Is that what you're saying?

Yes. A depraved individual lacks the ability to come to Christ without the HS's direct influence. I don't believe this is irresistible, but it is necessary.

 

[prophecynut]

Irresistible grace is the only way, if it wasn't then God is not sovereign and salvation would be determined by his creation.

 

[StefanM]

False dilemma, prophecy nut.

I believe God has sovereignly chosen to allow his creatures to choose. God can do this in his sovereign will. Are you limiting God?

 

[prophecynut]

Who are you to talk back to God, whether saved or condemned, that you can defy his will for his creation. If the unsaved have no recourse, you do not either.

 

[StefanM]

I have no problem with God's will. I just believe that God's will is not how you describe it.

 

[prophecynut]

Originally posted by StefanM:
[QB] False dilemma, prophecy nut.

I believe God has sovereignly chosen to allow his creatures to choose.

This is warped reasoning, doesn't make any sense.

I'm limiting God? No, you are. Hello!

 

[prophecynut]

Over and out.

 

[StefanM]

How is allowing God to chose his own method of governance limiting his sovereignty?

If God would rather have his creation freely choose him rather than be forced to chose him, that is God's prerogative. He is sovereign, and he can do so.

Sovereign means under the control of no one. It does not mean that one must not allow any free choice of any kind.

 

[webdog]

StefanM, talking to a calvinist is like talking to a JW or RC, they have a programmed response for every question or inconsistancy in their belief system shown to them.