Hi Jason,
I realize this question is older, but its worthy of further discussion because it is very popular and common place these days. Unfortunately, the 'sinner's prayer' is a modern tradition used by men to "invite Jesus into your heart" as the common thought goes. Unfortunately that is not how God wrote His original invitation. God invites us to respond to his offer of Salvation and he picks the time and place and how that happens. Sadly, more and more churches have edited God's invitation and rewritten it to suit their own traditions of more convenient ways of pronouncing someone "saved by grace through faith". Now instead of saying God has invited you to respond to his invitation, we tell people they can invite God/Jesus into their heart by using their own "invitation". They also then preach words against God's actual invitation by stating that anything in God's original invitation that required anything we "do" on our part is somehow no longer a response of "faith" but an act of "works" based salvation teaching. They have become self deceived by accepting the tradition of men in place of God's commands: a devise of the adversary of our souls to further divide the body of Christ and keep people ignorant of the truth.
Your wife is right to have reservations regarding this prayer and here is a short answer why... hopefully I explain it clearly enough here. Let me know if anything is confusing or if you have questions for clarification:
A) When people use Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 10:9-13, Joel 2:32, Revelation 3:20, Acts 16:31 as proof texts for the use of a "prayer" to express faith in Christ and thus receive salvation they are misusing these texts...
1) Who was the audience for the texts used for the "Sinner's Prayer" justification?
a) In the popular, "Behold I stand at the door and knock" passage in Revelation chapter 3:20 used for encouraging sinners to pray and invite Jesus into their hearts (implying that if they did this, that he would "come in" and eat with them)...since he is standing outside the door of their heart and knocking to be invited in. However, if you look up that passage you will read that these words were not to unbelievers but to the "Church at Laodicea" and concluded with the words that those who had ears to hear should hear "what the Spirit says to the Chuches". The sad state of the Laodicean church was that Jesus had become an unwelcome guest as was evidenced by his no longer being inside the church but standing outside asking to be let inside again if they would listen to his rebuke and repent.
b) Paul's letters were written to Christians. He addresses them in the beginning of each letter with words such as "the faithful in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 1:1) And the to the Romans he says, "your faith is being reported all over the World..." (Romans 1:8). These were not unbelievers he was writing to who needed instructions on how to convert. These were believers in Christ who had already responded to the gospel and needed assurance during times of persecution to remain faithful - to keep confessing Jesus and Keep believing in him - remaining faithful even unto death. At the time that Paul wrote, many Christians were being put to death in Rome and told they would be released if they denied Christ Jesus and said, "Ceasar is Lord" as a confession of renunciation of their faith. Paul also had to write letters to defend the faith against the Jews in the region who were adding to the New Covenant stipulations that were not necessary: Particularly that Gentile's must accept the Covenant of Circumcision and full obedience to the whole laws of Moses (there are 613 laws by the way) in order to be saved. So when he writes its by Grace and not works... (he meant "works of the law" of Moses).
2) What about Joel's prophesy of "Calling on the Name of the Lord" = Salvation in Joel 2:32?
Well, we need to define what that meant, because unfortunately today people say this is a "prayer" and yet I ask, "Did they teach it that way historically?" The answer is clearly "no".
a) Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost and quoted the passage in Joel that everyone who "calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." But then after preaching the message about Jesus being the Messiah... when the crowd was convicted "cut to the heart" feeling guilty for having rejected Jesus as their savior instead of acknowledging him... they asked the Apostles, "What shall we do?" (Acts 2:37) Notice the response Peter gave to him was NOT one of the following:
Example 1) "Just believe in the Lord Jesus and you'll be saved" (like Acts 16:31 begins)
Why? Because the crowd evidenced that they believed already and fully understood who Jesus was. This was evidenced when they asked "what to do" about the guilt and remorse they now felt by having "believed" that they put the Messiah to death and thus rejected him. But this new "Belief" alone did not save them, instead their belief did the opposite - it convicted them! They now realized they were guilty and needed to be saved and forgiven. They did not feel saved nor forgiven. It was their belief that lead them to ask what they needed to do (to be forgiven) because they did not feel forgiven simply by believing the first part of the message. When they came to faith in Jesus as God's messiah, Son of God they felt guilty and ashamed and fearful that they would be judged by God... so "What now?!" And Peter did not say "Just believe" was the answer or response to receive salvation. He obediently replied with the answer Jesus told him to give the people(Luke 24:46-47, Mark 16:15-16, Matthew 28:19-20) as was evidenced by what Peter said in reply (see Acts 2:38 and Peter's further explanation in 1 Peter 3:21 as the response for the clear conscience)
Example 2) "Pray this prayer after me and really mean it in your heart..."
Why? If, as many churches teach today, "calling on the name of the Lord" was to be done in a sincere heart felt repentant prayer in order to receive the forgiveness of one's sins... then this would have been an extremely easy thing for the Apostle Peter to ask 3,000 people to do -much like is offered for convenience today at many "alter calls" or "crusades" in ball parks. Yet, Peter did not answer those who asked, "What shall we do" (Acts 2:37) by telling them the next step to receive forgiveness and Salvation in Christ was to confess their sins via prayer and invite Jesus into their heart. He never told them to pray anything at all. Not even once. In fact in the whole book of Acts which tells the history of the early evangelism of the Apostles - when the gospel was preached from the very beginning... not even once did they ever use prayer as an example for us to follow as part of the response of faith to initially receive forgiveness in Christ Jesus. So "calling on the name of the Lord" was not a "prayer" as we know it.
So Historically speaking........... How did one call on the name of the Lord?
The name Jesus in Hebrew (Yeshua or Yehoshua) means "Salvation" so calling on God's "Salvation" for the forgiveness of your sins... was done during immersion as one was Baptised into Christ (in or "into" the name of Salvation for the forgiveness of your sins" See Acts 2:38) When the Apostle Paul himself was given the opportunity to respond to the gospel once he believed, he was told the same thing, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.' (Acts 22:16 NIV) So Paul would not have counseled anyone differently in his letters and in fact in his letters we get further confirmation agreeing with Baptism's meaning and purpose instead (Romans 6:1-11, Galatians 3:26-29, Colossians 2:11-15, Titus 3:3-7, and in that context even Ephesians 2:1-10 uses the same word description for what happened at Baptism "made alive with Christ" "Raised us up with Christ" without the word "baptism" since they would have known what he was talking about - "he writes the same way in all his letters" Peter testified. All the Apostles understood that prayer in conversation with God was used later for many reasons - including asking forgiveness- but as a means of communication between those already "in Christ" who were "Saints", "God's elect", "Christians" "Followers of the Way" etc... whatever you call someone who already converted. Besides the Apostle Peter made it clear at the very first preaching of the Gospel message: That forgiveness of sins and the "Gift" of the Holy Spirit was a promise to receive to those repented and were Baptized in the name of Christ Jesus (into "Salvation") (Acts 2:38). The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call." (Acts 2:39) In other words there was no exception... this was the response for "ALL" those God would ever call to himself through the gospel and his message did not need any correcting, editing, subtracting and adding in the rewrites of well meaning evangelists.
So back to what about "Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved?" (Acts 16:31) Would this not be either a change from the beginning or a demonstration that only Faith alone was necessary for Salvation? No. In the same way, one cannot reason that faith is not necessary because Peter in Acts chapter 2 did not say "Believe" to his audience when instructing them what to do. The whole package goes together... (Hear, Believe, Confess, Repent, Be Baptised). This is the general logical order... but if your audience has not heard or believed in false gods... then you start at the beginning so they can believe in Jesus... if they have heard, and the truth to believe was obvious, but have not repented of their rejection, they may need to hear a rebuke and command to repent from their rejection of him or going their own way (ie: Acts 3:19 and Acts 17:30). For those already having heard, believed and repented... but not yet heard of Baptism in the name of or "into" Jesus (for the forgiveness of your sins and receiving the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit) then they were told to be baptized (Acts 10:47 and Acts 19:1-5, Acts 22:16)
B) When one studies the History of Evangelism as recorded in the book of Acts for our example to follow we can see that depending on the audience they started with some form of the gospel message and always ended with Baptism as the final response. Baptism was viewed as a response of Faith to receive a "gift" of the Holy Spirit, not as a work of man (something that had to be earned or paid for by man) or a "work of the law of Moses". And that repentant belief at baptism was necessary because baptism was void without it... as evidenced by Simon the Sorcerer's conversion (Acts 8:9-23).
Side note: One thing that might prove confusing is the reception of the indwelling Holy Spirit given at Baptism vs. Miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit imparted by the laying on of the Apostles hands. It would seem there is a dispensation of the Holy Spirit that involved miraculous gifts ie: prophesy, speaking in tongues that was given by direct impartation of the Apostles as a miraculous "gift". God did through them laying on their hands on people physically. There is also a difference in the "Coming upon in power" with reference to the Holy Spirit as a means to show God approved via miraculous signs (Mark 16:20, Luke 24:49, Acts 2:3-4, Acts 10:44-46) vs the "indwelling" gift as a deposit for Salvation (Acts 2:38, Ephesians 1:13-14) or reference to both perhaps in: John 14:15-17 and 1 Corinthians 12:13.
I realize this question is older, but its worthy of further discussion because it is very popular and common place these days. Unfortunately, the 'sinner's prayer' is a modern tradition used by men to "invite Jesus into your heart" as the common thought goes. Unfortunately that is not how God wrote His original invitation. God invites us to respond to his offer of Salvation and he picks the time and place and how that happens. Sadly, more and more churches have edited God's invitation and rewritten it to suit their own traditions of more convenient ways of pronouncing someone "saved by grace through faith". Now instead of saying God has invited you to respond to his invitation, we tell people they can invite God/Jesus into their heart by using their own "invitation". They also then preach words against God's actual invitation by stating that anything in God's original invitation that required anything we "do" on our part is somehow no longer a response of "faith" but an act of "works" based salvation teaching. They have become self deceived by accepting the tradition of men in place of God's commands: a devise of the adversary of our souls to further divide the body of Christ and keep people ignorant of the truth.
Your wife is right to have reservations regarding this prayer and here is a short answer why... hopefully I explain it clearly enough here. Let me know if anything is confusing or if you have questions for clarification:
A) When people use Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 10:9-13, Joel 2:32, Revelation 3:20, Acts 16:31 as proof texts for the use of a "prayer" to express faith in Christ and thus receive salvation they are misusing these texts...
1) Who was the audience for the texts used for the "Sinner's Prayer" justification?
a) In the popular, "Behold I stand at the door and knock" passage in Revelation chapter 3:20 used for encouraging sinners to pray and invite Jesus into their hearts (implying that if they did this, that he would "come in" and eat with them)...since he is standing outside the door of their heart and knocking to be invited in. However, if you look up that passage you will read that these words were not to unbelievers but to the "Church at Laodicea" and concluded with the words that those who had ears to hear should hear "what the Spirit says to the Chuches". The sad state of the Laodicean church was that Jesus had become an unwelcome guest as was evidenced by his no longer being inside the church but standing outside asking to be let inside again if they would listen to his rebuke and repent.
b) Paul's letters were written to Christians. He addresses them in the beginning of each letter with words such as "the faithful in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 1:1) And the to the Romans he says, "your faith is being reported all over the World..." (Romans 1:8). These were not unbelievers he was writing to who needed instructions on how to convert. These were believers in Christ who had already responded to the gospel and needed assurance during times of persecution to remain faithful - to keep confessing Jesus and Keep believing in him - remaining faithful even unto death. At the time that Paul wrote, many Christians were being put to death in Rome and told they would be released if they denied Christ Jesus and said, "Ceasar is Lord" as a confession of renunciation of their faith. Paul also had to write letters to defend the faith against the Jews in the region who were adding to the New Covenant stipulations that were not necessary: Particularly that Gentile's must accept the Covenant of Circumcision and full obedience to the whole laws of Moses (there are 613 laws by the way) in order to be saved. So when he writes its by Grace and not works... (he meant "works of the law" of Moses).
2) What about Joel's prophesy of "Calling on the Name of the Lord" = Salvation in Joel 2:32?
Well, we need to define what that meant, because unfortunately today people say this is a "prayer" and yet I ask, "Did they teach it that way historically?" The answer is clearly "no".
a) Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost and quoted the passage in Joel that everyone who "calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." But then after preaching the message about Jesus being the Messiah... when the crowd was convicted "cut to the heart" feeling guilty for having rejected Jesus as their savior instead of acknowledging him... they asked the Apostles, "What shall we do?" (Acts 2:37) Notice the response Peter gave to him was NOT one of the following:
Example 1) "Just believe in the Lord Jesus and you'll be saved" (like Acts 16:31 begins)
Why? Because the crowd evidenced that they believed already and fully understood who Jesus was. This was evidenced when they asked "what to do" about the guilt and remorse they now felt by having "believed" that they put the Messiah to death and thus rejected him. But this new "Belief" alone did not save them, instead their belief did the opposite - it convicted them! They now realized they were guilty and needed to be saved and forgiven. They did not feel saved nor forgiven. It was their belief that lead them to ask what they needed to do (to be forgiven) because they did not feel forgiven simply by believing the first part of the message. When they came to faith in Jesus as God's messiah, Son of God they felt guilty and ashamed and fearful that they would be judged by God... so "What now?!" And Peter did not say "Just believe" was the answer or response to receive salvation. He obediently replied with the answer Jesus told him to give the people(Luke 24:46-47, Mark 16:15-16, Matthew 28:19-20) as was evidenced by what Peter said in reply (see Acts 2:38 and Peter's further explanation in 1 Peter 3:21 as the response for the clear conscience)
Example 2) "Pray this prayer after me and really mean it in your heart..."
Why? If, as many churches teach today, "calling on the name of the Lord" was to be done in a sincere heart felt repentant prayer in order to receive the forgiveness of one's sins... then this would have been an extremely easy thing for the Apostle Peter to ask 3,000 people to do -much like is offered for convenience today at many "alter calls" or "crusades" in ball parks. Yet, Peter did not answer those who asked, "What shall we do" (Acts 2:37) by telling them the next step to receive forgiveness and Salvation in Christ was to confess their sins via prayer and invite Jesus into their heart. He never told them to pray anything at all. Not even once. In fact in the whole book of Acts which tells the history of the early evangelism of the Apostles - when the gospel was preached from the very beginning... not even once did they ever use prayer as an example for us to follow as part of the response of faith to initially receive forgiveness in Christ Jesus. So "calling on the name of the Lord" was not a "prayer" as we know it.
So Historically speaking........... How did one call on the name of the Lord?
The name Jesus in Hebrew (Yeshua or Yehoshua) means "Salvation" so calling on God's "Salvation" for the forgiveness of your sins... was done during immersion as one was Baptised into Christ (in or "into" the name of Salvation for the forgiveness of your sins" See Acts 2:38) When the Apostle Paul himself was given the opportunity to respond to the gospel once he believed, he was told the same thing, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.' (Acts 22:16 NIV) So Paul would not have counseled anyone differently in his letters and in fact in his letters we get further confirmation agreeing with Baptism's meaning and purpose instead (Romans 6:1-11, Galatians 3:26-29, Colossians 2:11-15, Titus 3:3-7, and in that context even Ephesians 2:1-10 uses the same word description for what happened at Baptism "made alive with Christ" "Raised us up with Christ" without the word "baptism" since they would have known what he was talking about - "he writes the same way in all his letters" Peter testified. All the Apostles understood that prayer in conversation with God was used later for many reasons - including asking forgiveness- but as a means of communication between those already "in Christ" who were "Saints", "God's elect", "Christians" "Followers of the Way" etc... whatever you call someone who already converted. Besides the Apostle Peter made it clear at the very first preaching of the Gospel message: That forgiveness of sins and the "Gift" of the Holy Spirit was a promise to receive to those repented and were Baptized in the name of Christ Jesus (into "Salvation") (Acts 2:38). The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call." (Acts 2:39) In other words there was no exception... this was the response for "ALL" those God would ever call to himself through the gospel and his message did not need any correcting, editing, subtracting and adding in the rewrites of well meaning evangelists.
So back to what about "Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved?" (Acts 16:31) Would this not be either a change from the beginning or a demonstration that only Faith alone was necessary for Salvation? No. In the same way, one cannot reason that faith is not necessary because Peter in Acts chapter 2 did not say "Believe" to his audience when instructing them what to do. The whole package goes together... (Hear, Believe, Confess, Repent, Be Baptised). This is the general logical order... but if your audience has not heard or believed in false gods... then you start at the beginning so they can believe in Jesus... if they have heard, and the truth to believe was obvious, but have not repented of their rejection, they may need to hear a rebuke and command to repent from their rejection of him or going their own way (ie: Acts 3:19 and Acts 17:30). For those already having heard, believed and repented... but not yet heard of Baptism in the name of or "into" Jesus (for the forgiveness of your sins and receiving the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit) then they were told to be baptized (Acts 10:47 and Acts 19:1-5, Acts 22:16)
B) When one studies the History of Evangelism as recorded in the book of Acts for our example to follow we can see that depending on the audience they started with some form of the gospel message and always ended with Baptism as the final response. Baptism was viewed as a response of Faith to receive a "gift" of the Holy Spirit, not as a work of man (something that had to be earned or paid for by man) or a "work of the law of Moses". And that repentant belief at baptism was necessary because baptism was void without it... as evidenced by Simon the Sorcerer's conversion (Acts 8:9-23).
Side note: One thing that might prove confusing is the reception of the indwelling Holy Spirit given at Baptism vs. Miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit imparted by the laying on of the Apostles hands. It would seem there is a dispensation of the Holy Spirit that involved miraculous gifts ie: prophesy, speaking in tongues that was given by direct impartation of the Apostles as a miraculous "gift". God did through them laying on their hands on people physically. There is also a difference in the "Coming upon in power" with reference to the Holy Spirit as a means to show God approved via miraculous signs (Mark 16:20, Luke 24:49, Acts 2:3-4, Acts 10:44-46) vs the "indwelling" gift as a deposit for Salvation (Acts 2:38, Ephesians 1:13-14) or reference to both perhaps in: John 14:15-17 and 1 Corinthians 12:13.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
