Should I Use the Sinner’s Prayer in Evangelism?

Posted on by
Reply

Michael Riccardi is a faculty associate in the theology department at The Master’s Seminary. He is also the pastor of local outreach ministries and pastors the GraceLife fellowship group at Grace Community Church.

Article source: https://www.tms.edu/blog/should-i-use-the-sinners-prayer-in-evangelism/

Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner and need Your forgiveness. I believe that You died for my sins. I want to turn from my sins. I now invite You to come into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow You as Lord and Savior.

In Jesus’ name.

Amen.

I think many of us, at some point in our lives, have prayed a prayer similar to this. Maybe some of us have led others in a prayer like this. But can we actually have the confidence to base our eternity on repeating these words after our mom, dad, or youth leader? As leaders or parents, should we be assuring others of their eternal salvation merely because they recite these words?

Put simply, what are we to think of the sinner’s prayer?

We must understand several things:

FIRST, THE ACT OF PRAYER IN AND OF ITSELF DOES NOT SAVE.

Proponents of the sinner’s prayer often state that by simply praying this prayer, you can have full assurance of immediate and eternal salvation. Indeed, to doubt your salvation after praying this prayer is portrayed to be wicked unbelief in the promises of God. However, Scripture never identifies prayer as the means of either our justification or our assurance.

Any experience—no matter how well-worded or emotion-filled—that does not result in the grace-empowered production of fruit is not genuine salvation.

In the New Testament, we see people who are saved without praying (e.g., Luke 23:39–43; Acts 10:34–48), and we also see those who pray and yet are not saved (Matt 7:21–23; Luke 18:11–12). Throughout the Bible, it is made clear that prayer is not the switch that activates salvation. Faith alone is the means of our justification. Salvation occurs the moment someone turns from his or her sin and places their hope for salvation in Christ. This is accomplished solely by the empowering of the Holy Spirit, and it is based upon the finished work of Christ. A repentant person must understand that the basis for salvation is repentant faith in Christ alone.

This is not to say sinners should not pray. True repentant faith will express itself to God in prayer. The tax collector of Luke 18:13prayed, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” and Jesus says he went to his house justified (Luke 18:14). Significantly, though, it was in the total abandonment of any works—including prayers—that brought salvation to this man.

SECOND, WE CANNOT ASSURE SOMEONE OF THEIR SALVATION.

Salvation is not the result of external actions (1 Sam 16:7). So, if we assure someone of their salvation merely on the basis of a verbal commitment, we may bring great confusion into the life of that person when fruit does not appear and sustained victory over sin never comes.

Jesus tells a parable with this very point in mind. In the parable of the soils, Jesus illustrates that we cannot know the condition of a person’s heart solely by their initial response to the gospel, but only by the fruit that marks their life (Mark 4:1–20).

THIRD, WE CAN ASSURE SOMEONE THAT IF THEY REPENT, CHRIST WILL SAVE THEM.

What we can—and must—assure people of is that if they genuinely repent of their sins and trust in Christ, He will in no way cast them out (John 6:37). But how can someone know if he has truly repented?

A new believer must look to Scripture to evaluate his salvation. If he fails to do this, then he will continue to look back to an external action—like coming forward at a meeting or praying the sinner’s prayer—as the verification of his salvation.

Assurance comes from comparing the life of the one who has repented to the Scripture in the following areas:

Patterns of Obedience

The life of the true believer will be marked by patterns of obedience. As he grows in love for God, he will grow in obedience to the commandments of God (cf. John 14:15, 23; 1 John 2:3–6; 5:3). A true believer will also have continued and sustained faith in the promises of God (1 John 3:23; 1 Thess 2:13).

The Fruit of the Spirit

As a believer applies the Scriptures and grows in Christ-likeness, the Holy Spirit produces within him “fruits in keeping with repentance” (cf. Luke 3:8; Gal 5:22–23). These steps may be small at first, and may be slowed by sin, but sanctification will never completely stall (Phil 2:13; 1 Thess 5:23–24). The attitudes and actions of believers will even change and mature as they grow in Christlikeness.

This is illustrated by Jesus’ remarks that a good tree will bear good fruit (Matt 7:17). Any experience—no matter how well-worded or emotion-filled—that does not result in the grace-empowered production of fruit is not genuine salvation.

The Ministry of the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit takes up residence in every believer and is actively involved in sanctification. By His very presence, He comforts, convicts, and gives resolute confidence that we are indeed children of God (cf. Rom 8:16; 1 John 3:24).

ALTERNATIVES TO THE SINNER’S PRAYER

So what do we do then?

As you end an interaction with someone who has responded positively to the gospel, you should seek to do so in a way that does not give false assurance but, at the same time, does not cast unnecessary suspicion on their profession.

If not the sinner’s prayer, what should you do? Here are several alternatives.

Pray for them yourself.

Often, the best thing to do at the end of an evangelistic encounter is just to pray for the person yourself. It’s not merely a formality; you’re genuinely asking God to send His Spirit to use the power of His Word to quicken a dead heart.

Even if someone is truly converted, they likely don’t know how to pray. Your praying with them begins to teach them how.

Ask them to pray in their own words.

If the person you’re evangelizing does express a desire to pray along with you, better than a “repeat-after-me” prayer is just to let them pray to God on their own. You’ve likely covered a lot of ground in your gospel presentation, and this can serve as a helpful gauge of their understanding of the gospel and its implications.

Exhort them to make their calling and election sure.

Rather than making them feel like you are suspicious of their desire to repent and believe, be sure to explain what it means to “count the cost” of following Christ (Luke 14:25–33). Then, as Peter says, exhort them to make their calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10). Call them to confirm what God has done today by bearing fruits in keeping with repentance (Luke 3:8). By putting it this way, you frame the issue positively while still emphasizing their responsibility to walk in faithfulness.

Follow up with the beginnings of discipleship.

If they live reasonably close to your local church, invite them as your guest. You might also invite them to your house for dinner, coffee, and dessert. Perhaps there is another way to follow up with them that makes more sense in your context. The important thing is to be available to follow up with them and to introduce them to a sound local church.

T.U.L.I.P. – The Doctrines of Grace

Posted on by
Reply
From the archives: Here (below) is a series of one hour teachings on the Doctrines of Grace (also known by the acrostic T.U.L.I.P.) I did some time back on Dr. James White’s Dividing Line broadcasts. Since their release back in 2014, I have received a lot of encouraging feedback as to how these teachings have impacted people to understand and appreciate God’s grace in salvation more fully.

1: The “T” in the TULIP, “TOTAL DEPRAVITY”:

2. The “U” in the TULIP, “UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION”

3. The “L” in the TULIP, “LIMITED ATONEMENT”

4: The “I” in the TULIP, “IRRESISTIBLE GRACE”

5: The conclusion of the TULIP series – “THE PERSEVERANCE (PRESERVATION) OF THE SAINTS”:

The Priority of the New Testament in Interpretation

Posted on by
Reply

Article: Hermeneutics: New Testament Priority by Tom Hicks

Source: https://founders.org/2016/05/26/hermeneutics-new-testament-priority/

One important aspect of biblical hermeneutics (the theory of biblical interpretation) is the principle of “New Testament priority.” At the beginning of the Middle Ages, Augustine of Hippo (354-430) expressed New Testament priority with the phrase, “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed.” Augustine meant that the Old Testament contains shadowy types and figures that are only clearly revealed in the New Testament. In other words, the New Testament explains the Old Testament. The Protestant Reformers and Puritans also looked to the New Testament to govern their interpretation of the Old. An early confessional Particular Baptist, Nehemiah Coxe, agreed with the Reformed interpretive principle when he wrote, “…the best interpreter of the Old Testament is the Holy Spirit speaking to us in the new.” [1]

The interpretive principle of New Testament priority is derived from an examination of the Scriptures themselves. As we read the Bible, we notice that earlier texts never explicitly interpret later texts. Earlier texts provide the interpretive context for later texts, but earlier texts never cite later texts and explain them directly. Rather, what we find is that later texts make explicit reference to earlier texts and provide explanations of them. Moreover, the later portion of any book always makes clear the earlier portion. When you just begin to read a novel, for example, you’re still learning the characters, the setting, the context, etc., but later on, as the story progresses, things that happened earlier in the book make more sense and take on new meaning. Mysteries are resolved. Earlier conversations between characters gain new significance as the novel unfolds. Later parts of the story have primary explanatory power over the earlier parts.

The hermeneutical principle of New Testament priority simply recognizes these facts. Following the Bible’s own example, interpreters should allow later revelation in the Bible to explain earlier revelation, rather than insisting on their own uninspired interpretations of earlier revelation without reference to the authoritative explanations of later revelation.

A Response to John MacArthur’s Opposition to New Testament Priority

Over and against New Testament priority, John MacArthur claims that to make “the New Testament the final authority on the Old Testament denies the perspicuity of the Old Testament as a perfect revelation in itself.” [2] Of course, MacArthur’s claim is easily reversed. One might argue that to suggest that the New Testament is not the final authority on the Old Testament denies the perspicuity (which means “clarity”) of the New Testament as perfect revelation in itself. Moreover, MacArthur doesn’t account for the fact that the Old Testament teaches that its own prophecies can be hard to understand because they are given in riddles (Numbers 12:6-8). The New Testament too acknowledges that the Old Testament is not always clear. It tells us of “mysteries” in the Old Testament yet to be revealed (Colossians 1:26). The meaning of the Old Testament “shadows” (Hebrews 10:1) and “types” (Galatians 4:24) only become clear after Christ comes. Historic Baptists understood this. The Second London Baptist Confession 1.7 accurately declares, “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves.” That is, all of Scripture is not equally perspicuous, contrary to John MacArthur. Thus, MacArthur’s critique of New Testament priority is not consistent with what the Bible teaches about the Old Testament’s “shadowy” character. [3]

New Testament Priority: Dispensationalism and Paedobaptism

To illustrate how this principle of New Testament priority effects our theology, consider the example of Dispensationalists and Paedobaptists. Both Dispensationalists and Paedobaptists wrongly allow the Old Testament to have priority over the New Testament. Both systems of interpretation read the promise of a seed in Genesis 17:7 as a promise of a large number of physical offspring from Abraham. In Genesis 17:7, God says, “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you.”

Dispensationalists think Genesis 17:7 establishes an everlasting promise to national Israel, and they read their interpretation into the New Testament, convinced that God has future plans for national Israel. Paedobaptists, on the other hand, think the promise in Genesis 17:7 is the covenant of grace with Abraham and all his physical children, which leads to the baptism of infants in the New Testament and to churches intentionally mixed with believers and unbelievers. [4]

If, however, we allow the New Testament to interpret Genesis 17:7, then we will avoid the error committed by Dispensationalism and Paedobaptism. Galatians 3:16 says, “Now the promises were made to Abraham and his offspring. It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many, but referring to one, ‘And to your offspring,’ who is Christ.” Note well that Galatians 3:16 explicitly denies a plural offspring. The promise is to one Offspring only, not to many. “It does not say ‘And to offsprings’” (Galatians 3:16).

Therefore, in light of the clear teaching of the New Testament, we must conclude that both Dispensationalists and Paedobaptists misinterpret the Old Testament because they fail to allow the New Testament to have priority of interpretation. Both systems conclude that the promise to Abraham’s seed is a promise to physical descendants, rather than to Christ. This error leads Paedobaptists to over-emphasize a visible church propagated by natural generation in their reading of Scripture, and it leads Dispensationalists to over-emphasize Israel, when the New Testament clearly teaches us to emphasize Christ. The promise to “seed” is a promise to Christ, not to men. [5] This is not a denial of any collective aspect to seed; rather, it recognizes that the seed is Christ and that by saving union with Him, the elect are also seed in Him (Galatians 3:7, 14, 29). Thus, all the promises made to Abraham in Genesis 17:7 were made to Christ and to all who are savingly united to Him, Jew and Gentile alike. The promise is, therefore, Christ-centered, not man-centered, which is what historic Baptists have always taught.

1. Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen, Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ, ed. Ronald D. Miller, James M. Renihan, and Fransisco Orozco (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005), 36.

2. John MacArthur, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist,” a sermon delivered at the Shepherd’s Conference in 2007.

3. For an extensive treatment of John MacArthur’s dispensationalism, see Samuel E. Waldron, MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response (Owensboro, KY: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2008). For a short critique of Dispensationalism’s hermeneutic in general, see Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003), 33-40.

4. For an excellent critique of Reformed paedobaptism, see Fred A. Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus Paedobaptism (Cape Coral, FL: Founders, 2003, revised and expanded, 2007).

5. To see this argument worked out more thoroughly, see Fred A. Malone, “Biblical Hermeneutics & Covenant Theology” in Covenant Theology: A Baptist Distinctive, ed. Earl M. Blackburn (Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2013), 63-87.