Featured Can a Calvinist deny Lordship salvation and hold to the sinners prayer?

I once read the Sinner's Prayer described as "one-two-three, repeat after me" method of soul-winning. I don't quite see it that way.

I contend that if I have to tell someone the words to say, or have them repeat my words as their own, then I haven't done an adequate job of explaining how one comes into a right relationship with God.

Then, too, I acknowledge the occasion (Acts 16:32) where the Phillippian jailer was not asked to say any words--just believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm happy for someone to explain the fact that in one place we're told to believe; in another we're told to repent; in another we're told to confess with out mouths. Anybody want to tackle that?

 

The problem with the debate by the rock star theologians is their characterization of others. Specifically on knucklehead at a pastors conference at a convention.

 

Uh you will have to show me that one.

 

I feel your pain in this, as I am one who holds to reformed justification, but hold to Baptist view on eternal security!

And believe reformed would hold that a really saved person would keep on living for the Lord jesus, that their bent is to please and walk and serve Him all days of their lives!

Lordship salvation goes even Further, stating that unless one is willing to actually have Jesus in active control over all areas of our lives, a total surrender, maybe never really saved by him!

Again, when God saves us, Jesus is the Lord from that point forward, and we should strive to surrender all our lives to him, to seek His ways at all times, but believe that is a progressive/growing thing, as I am still learning more things to trust Him with after being saved for several years now!

 

Isn't Justification happen right at the point in time when a sinners calls upon the name of the Lord jesus to get saved? Doesn't God make us right with him then, grant us new natures and the abiding Holy spirit, regardless if we have "fully surrendered" to the Lordship of Christ yet?

 

You're right that it is a good debate. I will state again that I am not any sort of Reformed, yet I am vehemently opposed to the use of a prayer in any attempt to lead someone into conversion.

From what I have gathered, the Reformed/Calvinist objection is on the basis of their belief that one is born of the Spirit arbitrarily. What, then, could be the use of a prayer, which obviously would be an expression of someone's will and desire.

If I have gathered correctly, then the basis of rejecting the use of a prayer is not scripture directly, but a theological construct.

However, it is my firm conviction that scripture itself would condemn the use of a prayer. Scripture is not denied by condemning the use of a conversion prayer.

You make some excellent points. I added some asterisks in front of the one I appreciate the most. And the scriptural refutation is along similar lines

 

Then how would you interpret Ananias's instructions to Paul to call on the Lord to wash away his sins?

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Ananias did not seem to have a problem with the sinner's prayer. Neither did Jesus in Luke 18;

Luk 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Jesus did not have a problem with the publican praying and asking for forgiveness, he said the man went down to his house justified, all his sins forgiven.

If Jesus does not have a problem with the sinner's prayer, why should you?

 

I'm going to assume that the portion I underlined contained a typo, and should have read confess with OUR mouths

Believe - there are other words and phrases in scripture, which I believe are synonymous with believe. But believe what? In some places, we are told to believe the gospel. In other places, we are told to believe in Christ.

Unfortunately, too many equate "believe in" with believing that someone is real (Do you believe in Santa Claus). Most times, when I've heard someone ask "Do you believe in God, or Do you believe in Jesus?" the meaning is whether you believe He exists, or that He's real.

I have heard, countless times, that the devil "believes in God" (a reference to James 2:19). But scripture never, ever says that the devil believes IN God. James wrote that the devil believes there is one God. There is a HUGE difference

"Believe in" is also used as subscribing to an ideal (Do you believe in Socialism).

In Romans 4:21-24, it is said that Abraham was fully convinced that what God had promised, He was also able to perform. This would be Paul's explanation of Genesis 15:6 that Abraham "believed in God" and it was credited to him as righteousness.

This is the gospel which Paul preached - a promise, fulfilled in Christ, to be believed. I Acts, there are numerous places where Paul was "persuading" people of the gospel.

To believe in Jesus means to be fully assured that what has been promised, He is also able to deliver. To be fully convinced that when He died, it was on your behalf - to pay in full a debt that you could not pay. To believe that He has done all that was required by God


I like to use an experience of mine to relay what scripture means by "believe in"

At about 20 years of age, I was unsure of what type of career I might pursue. I had tried quite a few jobs, such as valet parking, drove an ice cream truck, assembly lines, convenience store, etc. Virtually everyone in my family was pretty sure I would amount to nothing. My own mother told me this too many times to count.

Well, I had taken up playing pool, and was getting pretty good. I was at my mom's house one day, and told her I had finally decided what I wanted to do with my life - I wanted to be a professional pool player.

My mother threw her hands in the air (literally), and said, "OH, like you'd EVER be good enough."

I want to tell you, I was totally deflated. What I said back to her was:
Mom, you know what my problem has always been with you? You Have Never Believed In Me.

What did I mean by "believe in" ? Did I mean that I wanted her to believe I exist? That I'm her son? That I'm alive?

NO !! I wanted her to believe that what I set out to do, I can do it.

That, and that alone, is the biblical understanding of what it means to "believe in" Jesus.

If you believe the gospel, then it means you believe the promise of God which was delivered by Christ.

And that's how Paul finishes Romans 4 - that it is not only for Abraham, but for all who believe in Him who raised Jesus from the dead


next post concerns "repent"

 

I'll address this in a little bit, as I am addressing an earlier post first

But Jesus would definitely condemn a conversion prayer

 

Jesus in fact showed us an example of a conversion prayer. And it took.

 

Here is another example of a conversion prayer given by Jesus himself in scripture;

Jhn 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Jesus told the Samaritan woman that all she had to do was ask him for eternal life, and he would give it to her.

It doesn't get any easier than that.

 

Repent - Unfortunately, too many believers have turned a lot of ordinary words into a theological words. Consider the following words and how they've been butchered by Christians:

Saved - ask a Christian what does "saved" mean, and most will say saved from hell, or going to heaven. So then, tell me how this works - I "saved" $100. Does that mean my $100 is saved from hell, or that it will be in heaven? Yeah, I know it sounds stupid. But do you see my point? saved is not a theological word. It can have theological implications, but there is a context.

Baptized - ask a Christian what it means to be baptized, and most will immediately think it means that a person gets dunked in water. Many will stress that it means to immerse, not sprinkle, etc. But the failure is still in thinking of the word in theological terms, and only for people. But Mark 7:4 speaks of cups and pots being baptized. Usually translated as "washing", but Mark wrote baptisms

Justified - wow, where to start? Just as if I'd never sinned? That's the all-too-common Christian misunderstanding, anyway. Justified simply means to "determined to be just" and can relate to people or actions. If I review your job performance, and give you a raise, I can say that you were justified in receiving a raise. Or I can say that I was justified in giving you the raise. Or I can say that the raise itself was justified. Again, it's not a theological word. And even in scripture, it does not relate to the same thing in every usage


Now, what about repent? Most import a theological definition that it means "turn from sin" or the have sorrow for sins. The failure there is in reading the English translation and thinking according to a modern understanding of the English word.

I remember quite a few years ago, I looked up "repent" in a dictionary. I was baffled that the definition was listed as:
1) to have regret
2) change one's mind
3) theologically, to turn from sin

I thought "Wait a minute." Theologically ??? On what grounds do they have a theological definition that isn't the same as the ordinary definition? Well, it's partly because the word repent comes from Latin, where it means penitence.

Hmmm. Does that come form Jerome's Latin Vulgate into our English translations? possibly, considering that it first appeared in English translations in the 1611 KJV

But when we look at the New Testament word, it's Metanoeo; a compound word, which means:
Meta - change (simple definition)
Noeo - think (from nous, mind)

Meta is an after effect, as opposed to Pro, which is a beforehand. A different word, Pronoeo, means to think beforehand, while Metanoeo means to think afterward. This is where the idea of change comes from. To think about something, and come to a change of mind about it. The later thinking is an about face from the former thinking.

But, Metanoeo, and repent, are not even theological words. One might have a change of mind about where to eat dinner, or what shirt to wear. Each of these would be perfectly fitting with the idea of Metanoeo.

In the context of the gospel, Metanoeo is an absolute synonym for believing. Faith and repentance are not "two sides of the same coin" as too many have claimed. Faith and repentance are the EXACT same thing.

If you did not believe in Christ before, and then came to believe the gospel of Christ, that means that you had a change of thinking - from not believing the gospel (beforehand) to believing the gospel afterward. Your thinking was reversed 180 degrees. That is biblical faith.

So, we are told to believe. We are also told to repent, which means we change from unbelief to belief. Same thing

Next is Confessing

 

I already told you once before that the living water that Jesus referred to is the Holy Spirit, not eternal life. But seriously, if you'll just hold your horses for a while, I'll address your fallacies in due time.

I'm in the middle of addressing an honest inquiry, which is far more important that an argument with someone who screams with emotions and posts derogatory video clips of people falling off swings

 

If you receive the Holy Spirit, you receive eternal life friend.

And here's one just for you.

 

When it comes to confessing, there is a context we must consider before jumping to the conclusion that conversion is the topic. We must also consider related word usage, which helps to clarify both the context and definition of the confession

But ultimately, there just isn't sufficient space here to address all the related issues which come up in a full treatment of this passage. One would almost have to construct a full systematic theology in order to deal with the mindset change which might need to come about in order to see what Paul was getting at. Nevertheless,

Romans 10-9-10:
that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

It's honestly very difficult for me to figure out where to start - context or word usage. In order to fully explain word usage, the context must be explained. And in order to demonstrate context, word usage has to be taken into account.

So I ask for a little grace, knowing that the way I write it may not be the most effective presentation for others to understand what I'm getting at. Some context, some word usage, all mixed together


The imperative to confess in verses 9-10 cannot be disassociated from verse 13, which says, for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

That's because both verses promise "salvation" for the one who confesses or (maybe and) calls on the name of the Lord.

It is thought by many that verse 13 supports a conversion prayer, which would be akin to asking for Jesus to "come into my heart"

But, only 7 verses later, in verse 20, we read:
And Isaiah is very bold and says,
“I was found by those who did not seek Me,
I became manifest to those who did not ask for Me.”

If verse 13 instructs someone to ask for Jesus, why does verse 20 say that God became manifest to those who did NOT ask for Him?

I don't need to make a great deal of that, but it is food for thought as to how verse 13 might have a different meaning than many think. What is this salvation spoken of by Paul?

A number of years ago, I was struck by words and phrases in Romans 10 which are also used in Matthew 10 and 2Timothy 2. Very interesting:

Rom 10:9 Confess the Lord Jesus
Matt 10:32 Whoever confesses Me before men

Rom 10:13 Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved
Matt 10:22 Whoever endures to the end will be saved

2Tim 2:12
If we endure, we will also reign with Him;
If we deny Him, He also will deny us


Notice in Romans 10:9-10, there are two causes and two effects:
1) for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness,
2) and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

We see the first cause/effect listed by Paul is that one believes in their heart unto righteousness. That is conversion, and it is complete.

The next cause/effect is confessing unto salvation. We see only 3 verses later that the cause/effect is to call on the name of the Lord to be saved.

So, is this two imperatives or one? Do we have to call on His name AND confess Him, or are they the same thing? Paul's flow seems to indicate that they are the same thing.

As noted in an earlier post, many are tripped up over the word "saved", and this passage is no different. But before that is addressed full, consider something else VERY interesting

What's translated into English as "Call on" is actually one word in Greek - epikalesetai

It's a form of the word epikaleo, which has two parts:
1) epi - on, upon, near, close
2) kaleo - to call

It is interesting to note how this word is used elsewhere as it relates to names:
Acts 1:23 - Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus. They "called on" him Justus
Acts 4:36 - Joseph, called Barnabas by the disciples. They "called on" him Barnabas
Acts 10:32 - Simon was "called on" Peter
Acts 12:12 - John was "called on" Mark

In these uses (and a few others), to call on meant to become called by a name. Though it can be used in the context of a prayer, as when Stephen was being stoned and "called on" (prayed to) the Lord, the context sure isn't conversion. It was in the context of him suffering martrdom


Also, in Acts 15:17, we read:
So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name

In 2Timothy 2 (there's that chapter again), we see in verse 19 & 22:
Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness.”

Now flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.

Epikaleo is used in verse 22

Epikaleo is also used in the Greek Old Testament in 2Chronicles 7:14, when God said "If My people, who are called by My name (epikaleo)"

But back to the context of Romans 10, and the similar word usage in Matthew 10, which is squarely in the context of suffering persecution. Is there any hint that Romans 10 could be in the same context? I believe so.


Back up to Romans 8:16-17, which reads "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

This is the part where many do not see the contextual flow from chapter 8 all the was through chapter 11.

Just as Paul said in 2Tim 2:12, if we endure, we will reign with Him, he says here that we are joint-heirs IF we suffer with Him.

And then it seems to may that Paul went on a schizophrenic rant, where he couldn't stay focused on his own context. It must be that he derailed his own thoughts in order to go into a long treatise on predestination.

If predestination were unto regeneration and eternal life, then Paul was absolutely having a hard time staying focused.

However, predestination has NEVER been about who will go to heaven. Rather, predestination concerns who will reign with Christ. Who will be joint-heirs with Him.

It is to those who have been predestined to suffer with Him, who were foreknown as joint-heirs. Rom 8:18, 28-30 says this:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called

And we can clearly see what we are called to:
1Peter 2:20-21 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps


So Paul is speaking of the GLORY which will be revealed in us, which he also referenced in 9:23
And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory

Now, look at this from 2Timothy 2:20-21 (there's that chapter again):
Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor

Now, look at Romans 10:12
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him

Paul is speaking of abounding riches, bestowed upon vessels of honor and glory, to those who are known by His Name.

Now, how about Hebrews 2:9-10
But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.


There is much, much more that could be said about what Paul meant in Romans 8-11, but as I said, there is not enough space here.

The gist of what I've presented here is that Romans 10 is absolutely NOT in the context of conversion, and calling on the Name of the Lord is NOT supporting a sinner's prayer.

Whoever is known by His name, and endures to the end on a confession, will be a vessel of honor, and will be a joint-heir with Him

But that is only to those who have already believed in their heart unto righteousness

 

That is the case now that Jesus has risen, but that was not the case when Jesus told that to the woman at the well:

John 7:38-39
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


Maybe you don't know, but the Spirit was a promise attached to the New Covenant.

And when did the New Covenant begin?

Hebrews 9:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.


The New Covenant was not inaugurated until Jesus died and was glorified. Before that, the Spirit was not given.

So while today receiving eternal life and receiving the Spirit happen together, John 4 is OLD TESTAMENT

 

Yes, I was aware the Holy Spirit was not given until after Jesus rose from the dead, but I do not believe that negates his promise to this woman. Her sins would have been forgiven then and there, and after Jesus rose she would have received the Spirit just as all the other persons who believed before Pentacost did.

The point I was trying to make is that salvation in the scriptures is EASY. Very easy. You don't see folks having to promise to obey and serve Jesus, you see folks being saved on the spot. That was the case with this woman, moments later we see her running into town telling everyone she could about Jesus.

Jhn 4:28 The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men,
29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?

You may not like the sinner's prayer, but it is scriptural. From Jesus's own example, the publican simply asked for mercy and forgiveness and received it. Folks want to make salvation more difficult than it is.