The Greatest Lie in Evangelicalism
In modern evangelicalism there practices that are contra-biblical, but there is one practice that concerns me the most. Prevalent in modern evangelicalism, influenced largely by Arminan theology, is the doctrine of decisional regeneration. While it might not be codified in any systematic theology work, the premise that the process of regeneration is initiated and complete by an agent's decision.
The Sinner's Pray: A Case Study
In many, if not the majority, of all evangelical tracts, programs, and sermons have a call for the sinner to make a "sinner's prayer." The prayer goes something like this (from the Campus Crusade for Christ tract):
"Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be."
This is apparently where the sinner "receives salvation." Many Christians I've met can name the exact day, the exact hour, even the exact minute when they prayed this prayer and received salvation. The question is: Is this biblical? Does the "sinner's prayer" hold up to careful scrutiny?
The Biblical Definition of Salvation
I need not do another rant on Calvinism, but it is important to note that it is a foundational stance in which to criticize the decisional regeneration that so plagues the church today. God alone is the one who initiates, seals, and perseveres the saint (John 6:37; Eph 1:3-14; Rom 8:29-30, 9:16; Phi 1:6). While agency is certainly not annulled through this, it never-the-less finds all its basis in God's initiative.
When Jesus was asked who could be saved he said: "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Mat 19:26). The jailer asked Paul and Silas the same question, and Paul responded: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" (Acts 16:31). Paul reminds the Galatians: "Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Gal 3:3), and he also admonishes the Roman church that "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Rom 4:5). The simple truth is that no where in the Bible is anyone saved by a "sinner's prayer."
The Danger of "Easy Believism"
Why would I even care whether or not one makes a prayer? Well, it is a sign of humility to do so, and I don't want to take anything away from that, but I want to draw attention that these "prayers" have made many false converts. If asked if they believe on Jesus, you would hear something like: "Oh yes, I prayed the prayer when I was a little girl/boy." It's a shame, because there are individuals like that who have not experienced the new birth (John 3:3-8; Titus 3:3-7).
Conclusion
Also who do "call on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Rom 10:9-10), but we need to present the Gospel in such a way that doesn't give anyone false hope, and one day Jesus will look at them and say: "I never knew you, depart from me you who do lawlessness."
Mar 14th 2007 
15 Comments 
Mar 14th 2007
Good post...like all of them. :-) Thanks for giving me something to ponder. It's very good insight, and oh so true.
Mar 14th 2007
Thanks Hannah! It's always nice to know that someone agrees with you. :)
Mar 15th 2007
1. So is the sinner's prayer biblical and if not where did it originate?
2. How else would one make that commitment to faith in Christ?
3. I would beg to argue that a lack of presenting the Gospel in the right way would lead to a false understanding or false hope in the sinner's prayer being immediate salvation. Not the person believing that because they said the prayer they are now saved.
Mar 15th 2007
1. No, and I don't know. My guess is sometime around the second great awakening.
2. God grants it.
3. But people connect salvation to the prayer, and that's the very problem I aim to expose.
Mar 15th 2007
So are you saying that John Doe is walkin down third street in Dayton and all of a sudden he is saved. How does this work? Is there any verbal acknowledgement of salvation?
Yes, I agree, but I still think that a lot of this could be cleared up by a better explanation of the Gospel.
I respect your views Chris. In fact in most part I agree. I just don't see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Mar 15th 2007
Chris,
I must respectfully disagree with your basic assertions. Yes, of course we are saved by God's will and grace. And yes, sometimes the sinners prayer is presented very generically. But why share the gospel with someone if you don't finish with giving them the opportunity to respond?
What about Matthew 7:7-8:
7"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8"For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
Would you say that we are not to tell those to whom we witness that they should seek salvation? I understand our depraved state (Rom. 3:11) but once God starts a good work in a person he will surely bring it to consummation.
I suppose I would almost suggest a mild rebuke for this article. With complete sincerity, I think you have spoken (i.e. typed) before you thought.
BTW, 100 POSTS!!!
Mar 15th 2007
A mild rebuke? Wow, that's quite a bold claim. There is confusion I believe in how people have interpreted this article (except for Hannah).
I question simply the roots of the "sinner's prayer," its role in evangelicalism, and the effect of false converts as a result.
I am not saying we shouldn't "confess with our mouth" or "ask," but I am saying that I think the basis for this ministry methodology is based on un-biblical assumptions and conclusions.
Mar 15th 2007
Like most critiques of the sinner's prayer, this one is rather uninteresting. The Holy Spirit regenerates. Great. But the person still needs to call upon the name of the Lord. Some people do it in a prayer.
The real question is, "Does saying a prayer get me saved?" Obviously the answer is no. Do you think Campus Crusade for Christ would say 'yes'?
Mar 15th 2007
Chris: "A mild rebuke? Wow, that’s quite a bold claim."
What does that mean?
Mar 15th 2007
I still assert that your problem should lie not in the prayer, but rather in the way that the prayer is presented.
Of course Hannah is the only one that has interpreted it correctly, she is the only one that has agreed with you!!
Campus Crusade comes across as if the prayer saves people, but if you were to ask anyone in crusade, fo course it doesn't.
I don't think a mild rebuke is out of the question. You made a bold claim, you should expect equally bold responses.
Mar 15th 2007
Ok, geez. Maybe I'm not conveying something correctly. My issue is how this presentation of "accepting the Gospel" leads to false converts, and also I believe it has an un-biblical understanding vis-a-vis decisional regeneration.
Why do I need a rebuke?
Mar 15th 2007
So, do you think salvation occurs in a moment of time or do you think this question can be answered?
Oh, and you do think there are two parties involved in salvation right? God and the person?
Mar 16th 2007
Interesting discussion -- I don't get online much these days, so if someone responds to my comment, I can't guarantee that I'll be able to reply. But anyway:
First, I think it's vital to distinguish between the fact of praying "the sinner's prayer," and the appeal either to pray the sinner's prayer in order to secure salvation or to remember the precise time when one prayed the sinner's prayer in order to assure oneself of salvation. The statement, "Pray this prayer, and you'll be saved," may certainly be misleading; but given the context, the person thus admonished may possibly understand the expression to mean, "Express your faith in Christ, because justification comes through faith alone." I see no problem with this latter meaning -- in fact, such passages as Romans 10 seem fully reconcilable with it. But in a way I agree with Chris, in that the act of praying the sinner's prayer has, in many circles, usurped the place of that to which the sinner's prayer should give expression, namely vibrant faith, particularly in the matter of assurance of salvation. I remember countless times, growing up, when I doubted that I was truly God's child, and the preacher or counsellor asked me, "Do you remember praying for God to forgive you? Then you're saved -- don't doubt it." This certainly makes the mere act of praying into something it was never intended to be, something that works "ex opera operata" (to borrow the phrase from the baptismal regeneration debate). What the Catholics think that baptism as a mere action does, many Evangelicals think that the sinner's prayer as a mere action does. The Epistle of I John gives many more legitimate ways to discern if one is truly God's child, and none of them has to do with looking back to a past decision, but with discerning the legitimacy and vibrancy of present faith, the present orthodoxy of belief about Jesus, and so on. This is the way to make one's calling and election sure, but it is a way that people who teach that regeneration occurs on the basis of a "decision" or "sinner's prayer" cannot really employ.
Anyway, just some rambling thoughts. Perhaps, Chris, you could go to greater lengths to make clear that praying for forgiveness/grace is an appropriate, indeed necessary response to God's work of regeneration and gift of faith. But I think some of the others could think through, a little more fully, just what the moment of decision/prayer has come to represent in Evangelical circles, as the one work done by humans to meet God, and as the only decisive difference between those who, having heard the gospel, are saved, and those who remain lost, etc. In this distorted understanding of what a true prayer/plea even is, human volition takes the place of faith which looks outside of oneself, as the determinging factor in salvation. So anyway, without discounting the legitimacy of crying out to Christ for mercy, we should also think about how to frame our appeal in a way not likely to be misunderstood, especially given the context of contemporary evangelicalism.
Editor's Note: Nathan's access to Internet is scarce, if you would like to contact him please e-mail me.
Mar 19th 2007
Ok, geez. Maybe I’m not conveying something correctly. My issue is how this presentation of “accepting the Gospel†leads to false converts, and also I believe it has an un-biblical understanding vis-a-vis decisional regeneration.
You never make a case for this in your post. You just state it and then go on to present the biblical view of salvation.
Mar 19th 2007
@Keith: From article: "it is important to note that it is a foundational stance in which to criticize the decisional regeneration that so plagues the church today."
Is that what you're referring to as far as not substantiating?