Things Tradition Has Added to the Gospel

Great post, LP.

These are things that are eating the very heart out of the typical evangelical church today.

 

Amen again LP. Loved the illustrations.

 

From TimothyW

I can't reply to this as my church has never had these problems and I can't speak for other churches... Brother Glen

 

I believe that Jesus walked everywhere he went also! According to my understanding of your post, we are watering down the Gospel if we drive to church! Jesus never rode in a car to church; most likely ( ) He never preached on radio or TV either! Does that mean that these "things" are wrong?

Seriously, I feel that you are trying to point out that there are many un-biblical practices going on today, but to repeat the old adage "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater!"

Just because "Jesus didn't- - -" is not reason to refrain. As with the above two examples, there are lots of methods that Jesus didn't use, but does that ONE fact make them wrong?

Can you show biblically that, given today's culture, He would not give an invitation that you decry as heresy? Can you honestly say that He would condemn a simple prayer that a sinner could understand that held the essentials of salvation? Are you biblically convinced that Jesus would never, maybe even disapprove of, follow up visits to assure that a new Christian is getting a good basic start on their Christian walk?

Sure, any and all "of the above" can, and are, misused; but does that make the act itself wrong, or just the results of a fallen humanity that will always misuse things of God?

Again, just because it was not"done by Jesus", or "in the bible", is not justification to denounce! If you can show a biblical principle that "---" violates, then you may have a case for condemnation. I'll be one of the first to agree with you IF you can show some VALID reasons from scripture to not do the things that you dis-approve!

 

I certainly appreciate hearing others take the same stand against additions to the Gospel. The practices that you listed are just the tip of the iceberg so to speak. For Baptists it is not enough to verbally assent to the preservation of the complete Word of God, we must seek to defend and perform its sacred principles and methods. Tha "additions" crowd are in the same league with Papists and Protestants. We Baptists on the other hand have been historically persecuted and destroyed for maintaining the pure Word of God with no additions and no subtractions. Our detractors, the Papists and Protestants, summarily would destroy anyone who disagrees with their actions as you have. Yet, there are some who take the name Baptist and want to be the same as their would-be murderers. This is how Baptists (so-called) deny or hate Baptists (true), it's because their Baptist hating friends do!
I have as saying, or rather formula, that I teach all young preachers that come to me for counsel..it's "Bible Principles + Bible Methods = Bible Results". I'm sure that if anyone will seek out and follow this little saying, he won't be able to go wrong in ministry. Just follow it to it's logical conclusion and see if it's not true.
This was a good start on this thread keep it up. There are a vast many more unscriptural additions that Baptist have to contend with and also answer to God for.
Your brother
John

 

LP, I would also add the "accept Christ," "ask Jesus to come into your heart," or "receive Jesus in your heart" mantras of the modern church.

 

just-want-peace,

Excellent post.

Sometimes the church is it's own worst enemy.

John 1:12 says, 'But as many as received Him {Christ} to those gave He the power to become sons of God.' I see not problem with asking sinners to receive Christ, so that He can bring spiritual life to the lost.

This, I think becomes a problem to many, because it is an anethema for some church members to believe that the sinner can do anything leading to his or her salvation. So to pray a prayer like, "Jesus come into my heart and take away my sins" suggest a contribution to ones own salvation.

Maybe we should tell sinners not to receive Christ; this will not add souls to Heaven's rolls. Maybe we should wait and see if by osmosis they will see in the Word of God, an alleged election by God autocratically to eternal life. But then it might not be that sinner's election. Where do we go from here?

Respectfully,

Ray

 

I did not notice LP condemning driving to church, using the radio, etc. The key issue seemed to be on how the gospel is being presented and if it is being distorted in the process. I think LP has some legit points on this topic.

While I see where you were headed with your questions, it is your reasoning that troubles me a little. The reasoning you used is nothing new. Here is an example of that same type of reasoning. Is it wrong for us to baptize babies? The Bible does not say “Thou shall not baptize babies.” Just because Jesus didn’t baptize babies or it's not in the Bible does not make it wrong, does it? Just because the Bible does not say anything about praying to Mary doesn't make it wrong does it? The type of reasoning you use can be used for about anything, and is. Perhaps it would be better to use the clear truths and principles found in God's Word to base our beliefs and actions upon rather than base our actions off of what is not there.

Rather than ask LP to show you where these things are spoken against, I'd be curious in seeing one example in scripture of a person being led in a sinners prayer for salvation, etc.

[ March 10, 2002, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: PackerBacker ]

 

Can only speak for myself here, but I guess I’m one of those who have a problem with “the sinner doing anything leading to his salvation.” My faith is not a work. My faith is based in the work of what Christ did for me. Because I am a helpless sinner under God’s wrath I place my hope in the work in the Lamb of God that did the only work God will accept. While I’m not against a person verbally expressing their faith to God, I have a big problem with “asking Jesus into my heart to take away my sins.” Sounds nice and religious and might even sell good on a tee-shirt or bumper sticker, but where in the Bible does this kind of salvation prayer come from? Please don’t reply with Rev. 3:20 until the context is looked at and it is also noted the lack of the words heart, pray, and forgiveness of sins. Some like myself simply have a problem with telling sinners to do unbiblical nonsense, no matter how religious it might sound.

How does a person “receive Christ?” What does this mean. That phrase alone means many different things to many different people. Some receive Christ by being baptized, some by eating His body and blood, some by asking Him to some how craw into their heart, others by cleaning up their life so he can come in, others by walking an aisle or repeating a prayer they were told to say, while some may understand it as faith alone in God’s grace alone. Which is it? That’s the problem with these little clichés. They can mean anything to anyone.

I’m afraid telling people to receive Christ (what ever that means to them) is not filling “heavens rolls” even though it might be filling missionary prayer letters, visitation reports, and it puts notches on the “soul winners” gospel gun belt. Have a missionary up the way from me who have lead over 1000 people to receive Christ in the last 5 years. Problem is you won’t find 1000 people that have been baptized. You won’t find 1000 of these people who asked Jesus in their hearts meeting together as NT believers. You won’t find sanctification taking place in 1000 of these people either. On a good Sunday you may 30 people in this “church.” What’s up? Ask him and he will tell you that the people are just uncommitted and just can’t leave their sin like us Western folk. How sad! Even sadder is that people in the States jump up and down in excitement over all these people who so-called joined heavens rolls because they repeated a prayer after the missionary and “received Christ.”

Why not preach the full message of salvation and then wait for repentance and faith instead of some osmosis in election knowledge”? Actually preaching the gospel and waiting for a type of “osmosis” is not a bad idea after all. Since I can’t save that person and they can’t save themselves, it only stands to reason that there must be an outside influence. Like the second half of John 1:12 you left out of your post. “…..who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Seems like a little “osmosis” taking place there. How about what Jesus told Nicodemus? He said the second birth was spiritual and compared it to the wind. Did He tell Nicodemus or anyone else to ask Him into their hearts, receive Him by a prayer, or any other cute little clichés? No. He told them to believe that He alone was their only hope of escaping God’s wrath and receiving eternal life. Where do we go from here? Why not back to the Bible instead of our synthetic methods of filling heavens rolls.

Wonder how many of those folks Jesus talked about in Matt 7:21-23 will be saying, “But Lord. I asked you into my heart on such and such day,” “But Lord I received you. Didn’t you see me go forward and repeat that prayer that guy told me to pray? What didn’t I do it right or was I not sincere enough?”

 

Good topic! Another plague that so called "fundamental" churches have gotten into is what I like to call The Gospel of Standards. That is where there are many man-made laws as well as a whole bunch of OT laws that must be kept in order for a person to be judged as truely saved. It is an outward conformity, and it is nothing more than works. It has done a great dis-service to modern Christianity. Just look at how the world lumps us in with other radicals who are murdereres like Mc Veigh, Atta, and the Taliban. In some instances, we have brought that on ourselves.

 

While I agree with you, LP, on most of what you have said, I wonder if you believe that no one has been saved by an altar call or being shown the Four Spiritual Laws, etc. I hope this is not what you are implying because it does not reflect reality. I know of several genuinely saved people who became so by way of an altar call or discussion of the Four Spiritual Laws. As flawed as you may believe them to be, LP, there is living proof that God still uses these things to save some.

 

Do the Ends justify the Means?

Not long ago a big named IFB evangelist rolled into a town not far from us for an evangelistic meeting. This was the one time a year when the people in this church got really excited about sharing the gospel. The hired gun had come to do it for them. Posters, newspaper adds, etc went out to invite the lost public to come hear the special speaker at Such and such Baptist Church. The invitations were powerful (emotional perhaps is the right word) and many decisions were made. Over 200 people walked an aisle and prayed a “sinners prayer to receive Christ.” Immediately after the meetings the church was on cloud nine because of the huge numbers of decisions. Family and friends passed on the big numbers to us in their excitement.

Two months later I went to this church for a meeting. I was expecting it to be overflowing with all these “new believers” but did not find such. The highest number I was given of actual people who were added to this church or showed any spiritual interest after the meetings was THIRTEEN! Follow up had been done on most of these “decisions for Christ” and some I spoke to that did this were shocked by the answers they received from people. “Not interested, Hey it was a one time thing, Kind of got caught up in the moment, I don’t want anything to do with you people, etc. These were all people who prayed a “sinners prayer,” “asked Jesus into their hearts,” and were told they had done the right thing and were now saved. Thirteen out of over 200!

When I questioned the leadership over this I was told, “but praise God for the ones who did really get saved.” I was thought of as being negative to focus on the 200 people “saved” and nowhere to be found instead of focusing on the 13. Yes praise God for the ones God saved in spite of the process BUT WHAT ABOUT THE 95% THAT GOT SOLD A FRAUD SALVATION. One guy told me, “Brother we just get them saved and God sorts them out later.” What a contradiction of terms. If they really were saved, why would God need to sort them out? Yeah, God sorts out the synthetic converts of our man made evangelism but when He does it will be too late. “Depart from me for I never knew you!” “But Lord, the personal worker told me if I really meant business when I said the prayer I was saved.” “But Lord the preacher told me if I came forward I’d be saved.”

Yes praise God for people who really do come to true salvation in spite of our business methods, manipulated invitations, and initiation prayers into salvation.. I don’t think LP or I are saying no one is actually saved if an invitation or “sinners prayer” is used. It’s the misuse and unbiblical terminology and methodology that is being pointed out. What I can’t fathom is why some want to justify the dirty water does not need changing just because a baby is found in the water here and there. How about the many who are not being cleaned in that dirty water? It’s these people we forget about as we proudly flaunt the occasional babies God cleans in spite of the dirty water.

 

PackerBacker,

I liked a lot of your ideas offered in your post.

In my own life I have assurance of my salvation, but I have always been discomforted when I read, Matthew 7:21-23, especially for those who might think they will be saved, but will not be included in the eternal Kingdom. You are right that a lot of mistakes have been made by using ‘catch phrases,' I do notice in these verse that Jesus will be saying to them, ‘ . . . I never knew you,' but in John 10:27 Jesus is saying to His own people, ‘I know them and they follow Me.'

John 1:13 is not teaching some kind of Augustinian/Calvinistic absolute determinism. God is saying that salvation is all of God; He does the transforming work through the power of the Holy Spirit. He is saying, "Listen, becoming sons and daughters of God does not take place because of the action of a person {meaning a person cannot activate, if you will, the Holy Spirit to regenerate himself or herself}." By the same token, we are not saved because of some kind of human, royal, blood line, as if royalty had a special edge on becoming sons and daughters of the Living God. God does all the work! Obviously, the blood of humankind cannot atone for sinners, only the atonement of the spotless Son of God. We probably all agree that God does not regenerate every human being; this then would be universal salvation.

Keeping in mind that only God can regenerate the soul, on what basis does He do the regenerating? A person who believes in unconditional election believes that God autocratically chooses some to eternal life, and by that choosing, actually elects the majority to the flames of a real Hell.

Now we are back to verse 12 which tell us how one can be included in His Divine plan. ‘ . . . as many as receive Him, {Christ} to those He gives the power {dynamite} to become the sons of God.' God has given man the awesome responsibility of receiving His Son, in order to release that Power that only, God the Spirit, can wield, (if you will) and apply. If we agree that God demands belief in the Son in order to be saved, then we are on solid ground. If you think that someone does not have to believe in Jesus to be saved, then I do know, there are people who think like this.

You made the statement that said, ‘Because I am a helpless sinner under God's wrath, I place my hope in the work of the Lamb of God that did the only work God will accept.' Your statement is fine with me, but I notice your aversion in using the word FAITH in place of your chosen word, hope. Trust me, you won't have to give up your view of sovereignty by using the word faith. Being more Biblical you might again consider that it is not hope that pleases God, but faith. The Lord speaking through Hebrews 11:6 says, ‘ . . . without FAITH it is impossible to please Him; for he who comes to God must {not hope} but rather, BELIEVE that He is, and that He is a Rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.' The reward, benefit or endowment is garnered only as one seeks Him. Apparently ‘ . . . those who diligently seek Him' are people. Here is the Triune God demanding that man seek God, and not God favoring and selecting certain human beings.

My belief is that baptism, Communion/the holy sacrament, cleaning up the life, walking the isle, repeating a salvation prayer, in an of themselves, does not lead to salvation. Baptism alone does not save. The question is what is going on in the hearts and lives of those who walk the isle or saying a salvation prayer? (for example) Are they believing and trusting in Christ's finished work at the Cross? Have these people repented? {meaning are they determined to turn from all of their sins, including their favorite sin, to follow God throughout their lives}.

FAITH in God's grace alone is the key to salvation and eternal life.

The pastor with 1,000 said prayers or decisions within five years seems to have his own problems.

People can believe there is a God and still be forever lost.

In Hebrews 4:2 the writer of the book tells us where the ‘watershed' takes place. It is not that everyone needs to sit around and wonder if Almighty God has elected them to salvation. The writer with a ready pen tells us that he and the rest of the church believed unto everlasting life, but the problem was some who heard did not do something essential in verifying salvation. What was it? ‘ . . . but the Word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with FAITH in them that heard it.'

In the Biblical account of Nicodemus interaction with Jesus [John 3:1-21] I notice that directly after Jesus said, ‘even so must the Son of man be lifted up,' He said ‘ . . . that anyone who BELIEVETH in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.' In verse 17 He might as well have said, "For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the non-elect; but that the non-elect and elect--through Him might be saved. From verses 18-21 the word BELIEVE in referenced three more times.

You said, ‘Some {think they are saved} by asking Him to crawl into their hearts.' This sounds to me very sacrilegious if not blasphemous, but I am only one person. In my opinion, after pastoring for over twenty-five years, if you have not allowed Christ, as you phrased it, ‘to crawl into your heart', you might be among those spoken of in Matthew 7:21-23. My prayer for you is that you have BELIEVED and are numbered among the sheep of His fold mentioned in John 10:27-29.

Respectfully, & I HOPE a brother in Christ,

Ray

 

Ray,

While I appreciated most of the way you responded there was one part that disturbed me a little. You said:

Did you not see the word Faith two times before that word hope that I used interchangeably? In context I said:

My faith is not a work. My faith is based in the work of what Christ did for me. Because I am a helpless sinner under God’s wrath I place my hope in the work in the Lamb of God that did the only work God will accept. While I’m not against a person verbally expressing their faith to God, I have a big problem with “asking Jesus into my heart to take away my sins.”

You will note that there is no aversion to faith in my actual comments.

You also said:

Come on Ray. Do I thank you for your concern for me or for a slam. I need to ask Jesus to come into my heart so that I can be one of the sheep in the fold? Says who? While your opinion is free to give, I'll stick with placing my FAITH alone in the redemptive work of Christ for my wretched soul rather than tell God I did the right thing by asking Jesus into my heart. Your right about Jesus being asked into ones heart being sacrilegious. That's why I don't tell other sinners to do such a thing.

I seriously believe that you and I understand salvation the same way. We both believe that salvation is a gift of God's grace? Man receives that salvation by faith in what Christ did in their place? Do we agree? Ok so then why the “ask Jesus in your heart stuff?” That's the issue. Unfortunately your post shows how bad the problem is. You talk about faith, which I believe, but end with telling me I might not be saved because of not agreeing to an unbiblical "ask Jesus in my heart thing." Why revert to this cliché when earlier in your post you were doing just fine when you used the words faith and believe? Stick to the biblical explaination of salvation you originally used.

PackerBacker

[ March 11, 2002, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: PackerBacker ]