Is the Sinner's Prayer harmful?

[Hans Deventer]

Well, to be fair, Ben did say, "Baptism is always communicated to be the normative means of salvation in the NT..." and I simply replied with just one example of a scripture that points to believing/trusting as being the means of salvation.

But I think we all agree that Christians should be baptised, if only, because it is symbolic of our identification with Christ who DOES save us.

[Kevin Rector]

But I think we all agree that Christians should be baptised, if only, because it is symbolic of our identification with Christ who DOES save us.

There is no understanding in scripture of the unbaptized Christian. All those who can, should be baptized, and there are very few who can not (like thieves on crosses). This is different than saying that baptism is the means that saves which is distinctly not a doctrine of our church.

[Benjamin Burch]

It is not baptism that saves. It is normative for Christians to be baptized, but salvation comes by grace through faith.

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved. As the Scriptures tell us, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be disgraced.” Jew and Gentile are the same in this respect. They have the same Lord, who gives generously to all who call on him. For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Romans 10:9-13 (NLT)

I have two blog posts which might be relevant, here:

Baptism

Born Again

Just as John cannot be understood without the acknowledgment that faith, for John, is impossible without the Eucharist, so, too, Paul cannot be understood without acknowledging that, for Paul, Baptism is the effective means of salvation and the place where one would make such a confession.

I'm sorry, but in the broader context of Romans, as well as Paul's Soteriology, your verse actually supports my claim.

Unless "Jesus coming into us" is understood as Christ's likeness making us more like Christ (which is how I am sure most Evangelicals understand it even if they do not or can not articulate it). This is really just a simple way of articulating that Christ changes us, and makes us more like Him. At the worst it is not nuanced nor sophisticated, but it is by no means a "lie". For the record, I agree that it is more clear to articulate that we come into the body of Christ than that Christ comes into us... but it is really un-graceful to call it a "lie".

If I making generic statements about every time someone made such a statement (Jesus coming into our lives) then I would totally agree. However, in terms of the normative practice of the sinner's prayer in Evangelical Christianity, I think "lie" is incredibly accurate - sadly.

Here you are just plain wrong, because the sinner's prayer is brought to the penitent BY the church, therefore, the very presence of the church in offering the prayer communicates that the church is an integral part of salvation. It is not the sinner's prayer that is the problem, it is the church failing to follow up and help the person continue down the road of Christlike living.

We likely will never have a solid enough agreement on a starting point for ecclesiology to even delve into this one. I'd rather just chalk this one up as one of those things that we'd probably better save our breath on.

[Benjamin Burch]

Well, to be fair, Ben did say, "Baptism is always communicated to be the normative means of salvation in the NT..." and I simply replied with just one example of a scripture that points to believing/trusting as being the means of salvation.

See my last post.

Furthermore, while I love Ben, I simply will not allow him to go unchallenged when he comes onto Naznet and calls the basic teachings of the Church of the Nazarene, "lies". Repentance of sin and trust in Christ is the Normative means of salvation according to the Articles of faith of the Church of the Nazarene (as established by scripture).

VIII. Repentance
We believe that repentance, which is a sincere and thorough change of the mind in regard to sin, involving a sense of personal guilt and a voluntary turning away from sin, is demanded of all who have by act or purpose become sinners against God. The Spirit of God gives to all who will repent the gracious help of penitence of heart and hope of mercy, that they may believe unto pardon and spiritual life. (italics mine)

IX. Justification, Regeneration, and Adoption
9. We believe that justification is the gracious and judicial act of God by which He grants full pardon of all guilt and complete release from the penalty of sins committed, and acceptance as righteous, to all who believe on Jesus Christ and receive Him as Lord and Savior. (italics mine)


XII. Baptism
16. We believe that Christian baptism, commanded by our Lord, is a sacrament signifying acceptance of the benefits of the atonement of Jesus Christ, to be administered to believers and declarative of their faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior, and full purpose of obedience in holiness and righteousness.

Baptism being a symbol of the new covenant, young children may be baptized, upon request of parents or guardians who shall give assurance for them of necessary Christian training. Baptism may be administered by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, according to the choice of the applicant.

Thank you for driving one more nail in the coffin. I mean that sincerely, thank you. NazNet has been a great place for me to fellowship with people who are wonderful people, friends, and Christians, as well as wonderful Nazarenes of all different types, and they have helped me realize that I am not Nazarene, why I am not, and why i could never be again. So thank you for one more example. Soon, I expect, I will probably leave NazNet, not in a bad way, but in the understanding that I am neither Nazarene, nor Nazarene friendly enough to bother people any longer. Thank you, again, Kevin.

[Bill Morrison]

See my last post.



Thank you for driving one more nail in the coffin. I mean that sincerely, thank you. NazNet has been a great place for me to fellowship with people who are wonderful people, friends, and Christians, as well as wonderful Nazarenes of all different types, and they have helped me realize that I am not Nazarene, why I am not, and why i could never be again. So thank you for one more example. Soon, I expect, I will probably leave NazNet, not in a bad way, but in the understanding that I am neither Nazarene, nor Nazarene friendly enough to bother people any longer. Thank you, again, Kevin.

Ben:
Naznet would NOT be a better place if you left. Your reasoned and well-mannered posts cause some of us to think. It may sometimes just help further convince us and help us to understand why we Nazarenes are the way we are but it is also valuable to help us see why other Christians believe as they do...especially valuable coming from one with a strong Nazarene background. (One of my brothers, after 45 years as a Nazarene, converted to Catholicism. I highly doubt he is ever going to get me to do any "Hail Mary's", but he has much to teach me about why all Christians do not have to be good Nazarenes.) If you love God with all your heart and want to serve Him with all you've got, you are "Nazarene-friendly" enough for me.

BILL

[David Graham]

See my last post.



Thank you for driving one more nail in the coffin. I mean that sincerely, thank you. NazNet has been a great place for me to fellowship with people who are wonderful people, friends, and Christians, as well as wonderful Nazarenes of all different types, and they have helped me realize that I am not Nazarene, why I am not, and why i could never be again. So thank you for one more example. Soon, I expect, I will probably leave NazNet, not in a bad way, but in the understanding that I am neither Nazarene, nor Nazarene friendly enough to bother people any longer. Thank you, again, Kevin.

I feel very sad that Ben feels this way, and perhaps this is a sad indictment of how vigorous and adverserial many of our "discussions" on this theology forum have been, and perhaps serves as a reminder of why we need to be more "friendly" towards one another.

Ben, I'd like to say that I have appreciated each and every one of your contributions in the theology forum, even though at times I haven't always agreed with them. Mostly at those times, I have chosen to be "silent" simply because I know that your opinions have been well thought through and reflect who you are in Christ and it's not my place to try and change your mind. You and I are now members of broad churches where diversity of thought is not only accepted (and respected) but encouraged, and many within the CotN are not yet at this place.

On this present issue of soteriology, there have always been a range of opinions within the Church catholic of how a person is actually saved. For many it involves an individual making a specific decision at a specific time to receive Christ (Evangelical). For many more others it involves the individual becoming a part of the larger body of Christ and involves the use of sacraments. ( Sacramental) While I have no doubt made an overgeneralisation, I hope I have been fair here to both sides. While the CotN is more closely alligned to the Evangelical perspective, we still accept the sacraments as "sacraments" and not just "ordinances" or "rites of passage". i.e. We believe that God is mysteriously present in the sacrament or the sacramental activity to such an extent that God does something tangible in a person's spiritual life when received by faith (i.e. the faith of the individual or the people of God). It has to be more than just a "memorial" if we want to use the term "sacrament" for either baptism or the Lord's Supper/Eucharist!

As one who is now firmly in the Methodist camp, I am unashamedly an evangelical, but I at least acknowledge the possibility that God can save someone through the use of the sacraments as well. I think we as Christians should be a lot more gracious to one another in our opinions about this and other matters of which there is great diversity within the Church catholic.

[Benjamin Burch]

I feel very sad that Ben feels this way, and perhaps this is a sad indictment of how vigorous and adverserial many of our "discussions" on this theology forum have been, and perhaps serves as a reminder of why we need to be more "friendly" towards one another.

I hope everyone knows I will not be leaving NN bc some people are or have been unfriendly. Kevin's post certainly wasn't anything of the kind.

Ben, I'd like to say that I have appreciated each and every one of your contributions in the theology forum, even though at times I haven't always agreed with them. Mostly at those times, I have chosen to be "silent" simply because I know that your opinions have been well thought through and reflect who you are in Christ and it's not my place to try and change your mind. You and I are now members of broad churches where diversity of thought is not only accepted (and respected) but encouraged, and many within the CotN are not yet at this place.

I'm glad there are those who do enjoy my presence here. I fear I am getting to the point that I didn't appreciate others being at -- actively advocating against Nazarene doctrine.

Also, NazNet used to be a place I needed, as it helped keep me sane while in the CotN. Now that I'm no longer in the CotN, I no longer need NN for that, and I can have great conversations with most of the same people via FB.

On this present issue of soteriology, there have always been a range of opinions within the Church catholic of how a person is actually saved. For many it involves an individual making a specific decision at a specific time to receive Christ (Evangelical). For many more others it involves the individual becoming a part of the larger body of Christ and involves the use of sacraments. ( Sacramental) While I have no doubt made an overgeneralisation, I hope I have been fair here to both sides. While the CotN is more closely alligned to the Evangelical perspective, we still accept the sacraments as "sacraments" and not just "ordinances" or "rites of passage". i.e. We believe that God is mysteriously present in the sacrament or the sacramental activity to such an extent that God does something tangible in a person's spiritual life when received by faith (i.e. the faith of the individual or the people of God). It has to be more than just a "memorial" if we want to use the term "sacrament" for either baptism or the Lord's Supper/Eucharist!

I would simply reply that while you are most certainly correct, such differing opinions are very new in the Church.

As one who is now firmly in the Methodist camp, I am unashamedly an evangelical, but I at least acknowledge the possibility that God can save someone through the use of the sacraments as well. I think we as Christians should be a lot more gracious to one another in our opinions about this and other matters of which there is great diversity within the Church catholic.

And I hope that I am clear (I know I am usually, I do not know if I was in this thread) that God can and does save outside of Baptism. God is free to do as God wills to do.

[Kevin Rector]

Thank you for driving one more nail in the coffin. I mean that sincerely, thank you. NazNet has been a great place for me to fellowship with people who are wonderful people, friends, and Christians, as well as wonderful Nazarenes of all different types, and they have helped me realize that I am not Nazarene, why I am not, and why i could never be again.

No problem, I lose zero sleep at night over the notion that you have left us, because you haven't left US. When I was pastoring in Wisconsin many of the people that I engaged on a pastoral level did not come to my church and were cradle Lutherans that could NEVER leave the Lutheran church. My goal in working with those people was always to help them be better Lutherans. One of my favorite AoF in the COTN is the one on the Church. Regardless of where you land in the body of Christ, we are brothers forever to the Glory of God.

Soon, I expect, I will probably leave NazNet, not in a bad way, but in the understanding that I am neither Nazarene, nor Nazarene friendly enough to bother people any longer.

This however, makes me sad. I have found our interactions on Naznet to be very edifying to me.

[Hans Deventer]

Knowing both Kevin and Ben, I am convinced any breach in communication can only be due to a misunderstanding. You're both good guys.

[Benjamin Burch]

Knowing both Kevin and Ben, I am convinced any breach in communication can only be due to a misunderstanding. You're both good guys.

As I stated, I don't think there's any breach in communication with me and Kevin.

[Hans Deventer]

As I stated, I don't think there's any breach in communication with me and Kevin.

Well, something's wrong, that is clear. Your call!

[Benjamin Burch]

Well, something's wrong, that is clear. Your call!

Why do you say that?

[Kevin Rector]

As I stated, I don't think there's any breach in communication with me and Kevin.

Agreed, we simply have a different hermeneutic and understanding.

[Benjamin Burch]

Agreed, we simply have a different hermeneutic and understanding.

Yep. I am right and you are wrong! :P

[Kevin Rector]

Yep. I am right and you are wrong! :P

The force strong is with this one, learn much yet he will. :P

[David Graham]

"The force be with you"
"And also with you"

[Gina Stevenson]

All right, you two!

*{|:-P

[Hans Deventer]

Why do you say that?

I may have got my English all mixed up, but if you talk about nails in coffins, it somehow doesn't convey a joyful message to me. May be my mistake. And when you talk about leaving, that also doesn't bring streams of happiness welling up from within. And since all of this was occasioned by what Kevin wrote, something's wrong. But if I gave the wrong description, it's your call to give a better one.

[George Wallace]

"The force be with you"
"And also with you"

Laughing just wasn't enough! I got pictures of the Star Wars Cantina gang doing BCP Holy Rite I in my head!!!