The story of the young man in the video above is a very heartbreaking and extreme example of the damage that can be wreaked in people’s lives by Arminian decision theology. I have no problem agreeing with him that the sinner’s prayer only hurts people.
I spent most of my childhood and teenage years not really sure whether or not I was saved because 1) I initially didn’t remember ever having prayed the sinner’s prayer and 2) the multiple times I do remember praying the sinner’s prayer I wasn’t sure whether I was sincere enough when I prayed it. My experience with decision theology was not so extreme that I prayed the sinner’s prayer every night after crying for hours, as this young man did. But I certainly have my share of “dates I was saved” written down in one place or another, and lived in constant fear that I would be left behind if Christ were to Rapture His people off the earth.
So my concern is not with the much-needed critique of decision theology. My concern is that the answer that is presented – a very dramatic and emotional conversion experience – is just as subjective as the problem when it comes to finding assurance of salvation.
It’s obvious to me that this young man was a terrified sinner who was absolutely crushed by the Law. You can almost feel the despair as he says again and again, “I’m not right with God, I’m not right with God.” He is a perfect illustration of someone experiencing what the Augsburg Confession calls the first part of repentance:
Now strictly speaking, repentance consists of two parts. One part is contrition, that is, terrors striking the conscience through the knowledge of sin. The other part is faith, which is born of the Gospel [Romans 10:17] or the Absolution and believes that for Christ’s sake, sins are forgiven (AC XII:3-5).
And the Apology of the Augsburg Confession goes into more detail:
We say that contrition is the true terror of conscience, which feels that God is angry with sin and grieves that it has sinned. This contrition takes place when sins are condemned by God’s Word….In these terrors, conscience feels God’s wrath against sin. This is unknown to secure people living according to the flesh. The conscience sees the corruption of sin and seriously grieves that it has sinned. Meanwhile, it also runs away from God’s dreadful anger (Ap XIIa (V):29, 32).
Decision theology turns faith into a work you must do – “you need to sincerely ask Jesus to save you and to come into your heart.” So instead of giving the terrified sinner the comfort of the Gospel freely offered, the terrified sinner is thrown back onto the sincerity of his heart – which he knows is desperately wicked, even though he might not put it in those terms. The sinner’s prayer is always qualified by “if you really meant it.” And there are plenty of things that will make you question whether or not you really meant it.
The answer for the terrified conscience is the objective promise of the forgiveness of sins in Christ. The Apology continues:
As the second part of repentance we add faith in Christ. The Gospel, in which the forgiveness of sins is freely promised concerning Christ, should be presented to consciences in these terrors. They should believe that, for Christ’s sake, their sins are freely forgiven. This faith cheers, sustains, and enlivens the contrite, according to Romans 5:1, ‘Since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God.’ This faith obtains the forgiveness of sins (Ap XIIa (V):35-36).
My concern with this video is that the answer to a person’s feelings of contrition is not presented as the objective promise of the Gospel, but instead is presented as a subjective emotional experience. Salvation is presented almost as God reaching down out of the blue and giving someone an unshakeable feeling of being loved and forgiven and of having their sins washed away by Christ, and causing them to have affection and love for Him.
Can a Christian have such feelings? Absolutely. But faith is not having a subjective feeling. Faith is trust in a promise. Feelings may follow faith, but they are not themselves faith. Feelings come from objective reality, not the other way around. The danger of looking to an emotional experience for assurance of salvation is this: What happens when I once again feel like a horrible sinner who doesn’t love God? What happens when that subjective experience of God’s love and forgiveness wears off and I am left all alone with my sin and doubt? If your assurance that God has saved you is based on an emotional experience, it’s easy to conclude that maybe God didn’t want you after all.
Revivalism in general – no matter what the theology behind it – points you back to yourself for assurance of salvation. With Arminian revivalism – in which the sinner’s prayer plays an integral part – the burden is on you to know whether or not you have repented adequately or whether or not your prayer was sincere enough. With Calvinistic revivalism – promoted by the likes of Paul Washer (who was mentioned in the video) and John Piper – the burden is on you to know whether or not God has sovereignly saved you. So either way, you are driven to look to your experiences and inner life for assurance.
I am not questioning the experience of the man in the video – in fact, I can relate to him in many ways. Nor am I knocking conversion as such. The experience of someone moving from darkness to light might indeed be dramatic. But any experience in my heart that arises from hearing and believing the Word of God – the Word of forgiveness spoken into my ears that says “Your sins are forgiven for the sake of Jesus Christ” – is secondary to the objective reality of what that Word says. A person baptized as an infant who is not conscious of a day in their life when they did not trust in Christ is no less saved than a person who experiences a dramatic conversion after hearing the Word. It is the Word of Christ that is central. Feelings and experiences may come and go, but it is the Word of Christ that is truly unshakeable.
“It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom. 2:13 You need to find out which law he is talking about since one has been added after Jesus’ crucifixion.
Hi Theodore,
Not sure where you get the idea of two different laws.
Context is very, very important here. The whole point of Romans 2-3:20 – when read in context – is that no one keeps the Law. Those who obey the Law perfectly would indeed be declared righteous, but there is no one who does this. Instead, through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. Christ kept the Law perfectly in our place.
See Heb. 7:12b.
Nice proof-texting – but you still haven’t proved your point. The writer to the Hebrews is contrasting the Old Covenant with the New – pointing out that that the law of the Old Covenant does not save and that the New is something totally different. The rest of the book of Hebrews goes on, as a result, to outline the radical difference between an obedience theology rooted in the observance of the Law (on our part) with Christ’s perfect sacrifice which provides that perfect atonement & forgiveness which we ourselves could never earn.
As a result, what Heb 7:12b is talking about is nothing more than what has already been indicated in Jeremiah 31:31-34 (cf. Heb 8:7-13 to see the explicit connection) – which is the same as what Paul writes about in Ephesians 2:8-9 when he describes salvation which he describes as the product of God’s radical grace in Christ rooted in Jesus’ forgiveness alone – and not in an act of obedience on our part. True – good works are to follow (Eph 2:10) but these are the fruits of a faith built on grace that has already been given – not the condition for it to be there.
Richard B
See Rom. 5:20, and also note that Jesus says that it is only a few who ever find the narrow gate into God’s kingdom. The major problem with your conjecture of salvation is the false assumption that a direct benefit has been granted to you by the sin of murder caused by bloodshed. See the three examples of the parable of the Tenants and note what Jesus says about his father’s intention after his son’s murder. Since they have not obtained a direct benefit by Jesus’ crucifixion neither have you.
Theodore, “where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more.” Jesus Christ’s atoning death is all for sinners, as St. Paul says, “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.”
The problem with the Pharisees and scribes to whom Christ preaches the parable of the tenants in Matthew 21 is that he is a stumbling-block and foolishness to them. They have rejected the Cornerstone, but there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. Yet, “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” The one who calls is not a Pharisee, but a tax collector and sinner who says “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Greeks, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. The Corinthians and we who are God’s sons have the benefit of Christ’s saving death and resurrection because “the word of the cross…to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
If you are so certain you are correct put your theory to the test. However since those who actually put Jesus to death did not benefit by that action neither will you. Obedience , OBEDIENCE of a command, a law, the law which has been added by Jesus’ crucifixion is the only Way the wrath of God might be escaped. no matter what you think. God does not respect persons in case you have forgotten.
Theodore, what do you mean a “law, the law which has been added by Jesus’ crucifixion”? Can you provide me with some places that the Bible talks about a law added because of Christ’s death? Thanks.
Rom. 2:13 NIV, Rom. 5:20, Heb. 7:12, Jas. 1:25 “perfect law of liberty” and many other places. “If ye continue in My Word” is another that comes to mind and “teaching them to obey what I have commanded.” The problem with your doctrine of salvation is that if the crucifixion of Jesus would have been the direct benefit, a man’s death by bloodshed in place of yours, then the parable of the Tenants cannot be true. His crucifixion cannot have been a direct benefit to those who crucified him and the residual issue of retribution by God remain outstanding. However it is true that Christ has died for sinners, all of them even, but, not in place of them as you have assumed. Therefore his death caused by bloodshed is only beneficial if the requirement by law has been attached as an exponential residual of a sin. So then by Jesus’ crucifixion having been the sin of murder caused by bloodshed. It is only his crucifixion as a sin that has been increased as sin whereby the addition of law in regard to the fact of his life having been lost by bloodshed. Each man has become accountable directly to God by bloodshed.
“And for Your life blood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from EACH man too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.” This is God’s set purpose for each man referenced in the Acts two message. The law was changed by an addition to perfect this small narrow gate BY Jesus’ crucifixion. And no man is going to escape the wrath of God by not obeying God this Way. That it is only a few who ever find this gate is not an understated fact.
“It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. ” Rom. 2:13
Theodore,
So what was the purpose of Jesus’ death on the cross? Just to make us all more guilty and to add further Law for us to keep? I’m not understanding how this could remotely be called good news. If that’s the case then all of us are condemned and have no hope because none of us keep the Law perfectly.
Go back and read the verses you quoted in context. Hebrews 7 is talking about Jewish ceremonial law no longer being in effect with the coming of Christ. As for Romans 5:20, this is basically saying the same thing as Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7-12. The passage must be read in light of the preceding and following chapters. You can’t just take a few verses out of context and string them together to prove your point. Scripture must always interpret Scripture.
As for the parable of the tenants, it’s noteworthy that on the cross Jesus prayed for those who crucified Him – “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Even those who put to death the Son of God could be forgiven. The parable of the tenants illustrates what Jesus said in Luke 19:41-44 and what Paul said in Acts 28:23-28. It’s not at all saying there is no forgiveness for individuals who were involved in Christ’s crucifixion.
According to Jesus the unilateral condition after his crucifixion is guilt in regard to (a) sin. See Jn. 16:8. Therefore his crucifixion is not an exoneration. His crucifixion has only perfected the Way, a lawful process, an individual might use to be exonerated from the law’s penalty in regard to past sins. Not all individuals were involved as participants in Jesus’ crucifixion, but each individual to save himself must give an account directly to God in regard to Jesus’ crucifixion by an addition made to the law. For if the law had not been changed by an addition Jesus’ crucifixion would have been a unilateral benefit. The only purpose for Jesus’ crucifixion was for the fact to be in place to fulfill the law by adding to it so that what God’s oath demands from each man has become a unilateral law. Can’t you read in Heb. 6 that there two immutable things? God’s oath and an addition to the law by Jesus’ crucifixion.
God is not slack concerning his promise, the guilty shall not go unpunished. Either you by faith obey the Lord’s command, a law given by God’s spirit through the apostles, confessing directly to God that you are sorry Jesus lost his life by bloodshed when he was crucified or God is justified in not sparing you.
Decision theology turns faith into a work you must do.
I think this statement is a fantastic summary of a compelling argument against it. If there is something that I must do to earn my salvation it no longer is a salvation by God’s grace, but our merit.
Indeed the merit may be small (listening and making the choice), but it implies that I made the choice so I get the benefit of the choice I made. It means that Christ did not do enough… and that I had to finish the job. Not what I read in Scripture about our helpless state and Christ’s mission to save us.
Who has said “make every effort to use it”? The crucifixion of Jesus has perfected the Way of salvation from the wrath of God., but the directive is “save yourselves”. Acts 2:40.
If your conjecture is right salvation is unilateral and the parable of the Tenants is wrong along with Jn. 16:8. But the student is not greater than his teacher. Since there are only a very few that ever find the small narrow gate perhaps you need to ask why. As for your helpless state. That is poppycock and the answer to the question. There are at least thirty thousand different so called “Christian” sects that appeal to decision philosophy. But no person, no matter his choice of them, is going to enter God’s kingdom by not giving the direct account God has demanded from each man too by Jesus’ crucifixion.
Is this what you confess “O God I am so happy you sent Jesus to die in my place”?, but isn’t it true that at the Lord’s table one can become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord and this table is by God’s purpose a snare and a trap?