# Understanding Decisionism



## steadfast7

I'm confused! Please help me to understand the folly of decisionism in light of the fact that NT figures seem to assume that a new believer/convert is truly saved at the point of their profession of faith. For example, the Philippian jailer [BIBLE]Acts 16:30-34[/BIBLE]. It seems that:
1. All he was commanded to do was believe
2. He did and was immediately baptized
3. He immediately rejoiced that he had believed God.

When Paul writes to the churches and pronounces to them that they are saved, sanctified, elect, washed by the word, etc, is he saying that out of his own unique apostolic authority? or is addressing the invisible church within the visible congregation?

It seems the apostles gave new believers the benefit of the doubt when they saw faith in their hearers, and they were generous with their words over them concerning their salvation. They did not take the time to examine them over a lifetime to become fairly certain that they were in the faith.

Also, is it wrong to read Eph 1 over someone who has just believe on Christ?

thanks in advance ..


----------



## Sgt Grit

I would pay particular to ACTS 6:32 “And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.” In other words they shared the Gospel with him and his house. Also, as you read the entire story of Paul’s imprisonment you do not see any mention of Paul or Silas mentioning to the Jailer that he needed to be saved, yet in verse 30 he says, “what must I do to be saved?”, so they must have shared parts of the Gospel with the Jailer because why else would he have known that he was in need of salvation?

Since I’m not at home and don’t have my bible with me I’ll give a short answer. In 2Tim 4:10 Paul speaks of Demas leaving him “having loved this present world”, so it’s clear that Paul who was deserted didn’t always know a persons heart, and we cannot make the assumption that simply because an Epistle was written to believers that only believers heard it. Just as this is true today in our churches.

I would point you to 1 John, but I believe Paul (like all Christians) was not the Judge as to who was in the faith, but left it up to God. Since even true Christians can for a time look like the world.

There is nothing wrong with reading Eph 1 to someone, but it is not up to us to tell someone they are saved. That is the work of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## AThornquist

It seems that there are several questions being asked here, and I am not sure what specifically you are asking regarding "decisionism." Every person is commanded and invited to believe in the Lord (John 3:14-16, 18, 36; Acts 17:30; Matthew 11:28-30), but the question is: "Who will?" All people are born children of wrath, spiritually dead and unable to understand spiritual truths, haters of God, and led astray in various passions and wicked pursuits; no one will come to Jesus unless he is drawn by the Father, and no one will come to Jesus unless it is granted by God (Romans 3:10-12, 18; Ephesians 2:1-3; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Titus 3:3; John 6:44, 65). It is therefore utterly unbiblical and false to say that the natural person is able to make a "decision" for Christ on his own. 
That is the idea that I assume you mean by "decisionism," or "decisional regeneration." The problem is that it has the cart before the horse. In reality, man must be given new spiritual life--that is, he must first be regenerated--otherwise he cannot and will not believe the Gospel. There are repeated proclamations of the Lord's work of regeneration so that we may be able to trust (Titus 3:4-7; Ephesians 2:4-8; John 3:1-13), and it is then that a person, now alive together with Christ, is able to trust. Consider Lydia in Acts 16:11-15: "The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul." Also thinks of the thousands who believed the gospel after it was preached, that "the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved" (Acts 2:47). 
Though man is responsible for what he does with the Gospel, he _will not_ trust unless the Lord in His sovereign will gives new life and saves the sinner. Our faith is given as a gift from Him, which means that we have the means of salvation because of His loving choice for us to have it.
This is why the Apostle Paul thanks God in his various letters for the faith of the audience church: God Himself is the author of that faith. We know that a person is elect and loved by God if the gospel comes in power, in the Holy Spirit, with full conviction (1 Thessalonians 1:4-5). 

Why does it matter? 
(1) Our spiritual blessings are meant to be to the praise of the glory of God (Ephesians 1:3-14 says this 4 times). When we deny this truth, we quite literally eliminate opportunities to praise our wonderful Father.
(2) If we believe in and of ourselves, completely apart from the help of God, we have room to boast in ourselves rather than affirming that salvation is wholly of God.
(3) When we deny man's depravity and thus agree that natural men are able to understand the Gospel, we cause contradiction and falsehood in our theological systems. This matters because God is a God of truth; there are no contradictions because the Bible is His Word. We ought not wrongly convey what he has told us.
(4) If salvation hinges on us, we have reason to fear that we may lose our faith and thus fall from grace. (Truth: "God who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Christ." Phil. 1:6)
(5) If God is sovereign, we can preach the Gospel without fear or compromise, knowing that the Lord alone can open eyes to see and ears to hear.

There's so much more that could be said but I need to go to work.  Check up those references - don't take my word on this.


----------



## steadfast7

thanks for the initial responses. I guess there are some issues that need to be sorted out here. First, the idea that a person responds to the gospel through an act of his will. On the one hand, this is condemned as decisional regeneration. But to be fair, we should affirm that there is a _sense _in which every convert does make a decision to follow Christ (although, we all know that there is a prior work of the Spirit first). Second, comes the real controversy. What is the evangelist to say to the one that has just trusted Christ for the first time? (and I do believe that it's possible for this to happen in a moment of time). Often, the evangelist proclaims that he has been saved, justified, that he has passed from death to life, etc. From my understanding, we must not do this because we cannot be sure of their salvation and it gives them a sense of security (whether false or not, we're not sure).

So back to my original confusion. Paul and other NT writers often speak and write to Christians and churches with the assumption that they are saved. How can they know? Why are they lumping everyone into the "saved" camp, when there may be unregenerate or future apostates among them? The simple answer is that they gave them the benefit of the doubt, based on having seen them believe, get baptized, participate in the church, etc. 

In light of this, then, why are we to avoid telling people that they are saved? How then would we counsel people regarding assurance? I thought we do it all the time. Also, 


> There is nothing wrong with reading Eph 1 to someone, but it is not up to us to tell someone they are saved. That is the work of the Holy Spirit.


 I'm confused by this. If I read Eph 1 to someone who has just believed, I'm implying that Eph 1 is referring to them and meant for them. But this is exactly the same as telling them that they are saved, isn't it? So I see a contradiction here, but I may be misunderstanding something. cheers.


----------



## AThornquist

Nova said:


> *First, the idea that a person responds to the gospel through an act of his will. On the one hand, this is condemned as decisional regeneration. *But to be fair, we should affirm that there is a _sense _in which every convert does make a decision to follow Christ (although, we all know that there is a prior work of the Spirit first).




You're mixing terms. Decisional regeneration is the idea that an unregenerate, God-hating sinner chooses to believe and is thus regenerated to spiritual life. 

The biblical model for regeneration (aka being born again) is that the Spirit of God does this life-giving work which _enables_ the person to believe the Gospel.



Nova said:


> What is the evangelist to say to the one that has just trusted Christ for the first time?



"If indeed you now trust in Christ, you will bear fruit that accords with new spiritual life. You will by no means reach perfection, but a pattern of repentance will become evident. You will also endure in faith until your death or Christ's return, because the work that God began will be completed. Many will cry, "Lord, Lord" on the final day but will be found to be liars who know not God; test yourselves and work out your salvation with fear and trembling."

Expounding on those things would be helpful too. 



> So back to my original confusion. Paul and other NT writers often speak and write to Christians and churches with the assumption that they are saved. How can they know? Why are they lumping everyone into the "saved" camp, when there may be unregenerate or future apostates among them? The simple answer is that they gave them the benefit of the doubt, based on having seen them believe, get baptized, participate in the church, etc.



Even pastors address the local church as a Christian church despite the possibility of there being unknown tares among the wheat. We can believe that those who receive the Gospel with full conviction and the power of the Holy Spirit are regenerated, but ultimately we don't know who are His because people are quite able to put on a mask and be deceitful. That is why there are repeated warnings for those who fall way; they were never saved to begin with. There may be some who wrongly get a false sense of assurance, but this shouldn't normally be the case if the entirety of God's word is taught and heeded. After all, if they aren't repentant and desiring the things of the Lord as a style of life, they ought not assume that they are Christian.



> In light of this, then, why are we to avoid telling people that they are saved? How then would we counsel people regarding assurance? I thought we do it all the time. Also,
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with reading Eph 1 to someone, but it is not up to us to tell someone they are saved. That is the work of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused by this. If I read Eph 1 to someone who has just believed, I'm implying that Eph 1 is referring to them and meant for them. But this is exactly the same as telling them that they are saved, isn't it? So I see a contradiction here, but I may be misunderstanding something. cheers.
Click to expand...


We don't tell new professors they are simply saved because they may not be. Counsel regarding assurance is by no means an issue because you don't reassure a person based on their so-called profession of faith; a mere profession of faith is worth _nothing_. You reassure a person based on the evidence of their lives that accord with Scripture and that _if_ they are truly of the faith, they will not be lost. We must never be the cheerleader that tries to keep them from doubting their salvation altogether; people _should_ doubt there salvation in many circumstances. If there is not good fruit, there is no reason to believe that there is a good tree. 
Regarding Ephesians 1, I would simply say, "If you are redeemed in Jesus, this is true of you."


----------



## steadfast7

I don't find Paul being so tentative with his words. Note [BIBLE]Eph 2:1-2[/BIBLE]. Remember that Paul is not only writing inspired theological truths, but also a letter to a young church with individuals gathered and listening to what he's saying. I'm sure he knows that there may be tares among the wheat, but he calls them all saved by virtue of the faith that they are in the visible church. Covenant theology would resonate with this. Call them all covenant members, call them all saved and sanctified, although only God knows those who are his.

Whence the rejection of this in decisional-style evangelism?


----------



## AThornquist

Paul wrote in Ephesians 1:1 that the letter is to the saints at Ephesus, those who are faithful in Christ. Ephesians 2:1-2 applies to _them_, not to whoever sits in a pew.

Besides, what does that have to do with a "decisional-style evangelism?" And who said that all people are not responsible for their faith in or rejection of the Gospel?

Also, in what way does Covenant Theology relate to calling all "saved and sanctified" by "virtue of the faith that they are in the visible church?" There are different ways to speak to a crowd; one may be more precise or more general. Someone may speak to a faithful church in general terms as being beloved in Christ, but that does not reject the reality of those who are _clearly_ showing no evidence of being regenerate. Think about church discipline: it _doesn't matter_ what an unrepentant member claims to be; if he remains unrepentant, he needs to be put out of the church for the purity of the fellowship. The point is, a church may be spoken to in general terms, but that does not mean that we think every person there is in Christ. If the Word is being preached faithfully, the unbeliever ought to know that he is not actually being addressed.


----------



## jayce475

Nova said:


> I don't find Paul being so tentative with his words. Note [BIBLE]Eph 2:1-2[/BIBLE]. Remember that Paul is not only writing inspired theological truths, but also a letter to a young church with individuals gathered and listening to what he's saying. I'm sure he knows that there may be tares among the wheat, but he calls them all saved by virtue of the faith that they are in the visible church. Covenant theology would resonate with this. Call them all covenant members, call them all saved and sanctified, although only God knows those who are his.
> 
> Whence the rejection of this in decisional-style evangelism?


 
This is why we make a distinction between the visible and invisible church. I see a huge disjoint between the language of the WCF with regards to assurance of salvation and that of modern evangelical decisional regeneration preachers.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

In Suk,

It is not wrong to tell all the blessings of being in Christ to anyone. And there is certainly nothing wrong with applying them to someone who has made a profession of faith in Christ as he is truly represented in the gospel, and who is not at that moment living in gross sin which would put their profession into question. We don't have to wait to appropriate the promises to them. We may do so, knowing that only God (and possibly the individual) knows for sure. We make a judgment of charity, as the apostles did. 

The difference between this and decisionism is that we know that it's possible that we could be wrong and the person could be deceiving us and him/herself. The New Birth is a sovereign work of God, not an act of the human will. Yet we don't have to agonize over trying to figure out whether the person is really born again or not; that is left in God's hands. A credible profession of faith as described above is good enough for the purposes of fellowship and a judgment of charity. (That is, considering him or her to be a Christian, as far as we are able to know.)


----------



## steadfast7

I think I am beginning to understand. The judgment of charity is an excellent term. i think this is what the NT writers are doing when they address their churches, and it's what we do with fellow Christians all the time. 

So, telling a new convert that he is saved is bad because we haven't any fruit yet (?) Is the temporal aspect the dividing line? 

I can understand that the _doctrine _behind decisionism is totally wrong, but the practice of having someone pray a prayer of repentance and trust, and then encouraging them that he is justified at the moment of faith, apart from works - I'm not sure I see what's so wrong with that. It could very well be true that he was saved at that moment of his 'decision.'


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Nova said:


> I think I am beginning to understand. The judgment of charity is an excellent term. i think this is what the NT writers are doing when they address their churches, and it's what we do with fellow Christians all the time.
> 
> So, telling a new convert that he is saved is bad because we haven't any fruit yet (?) Is the temporal aspect the dividing line?
> 
> I can understand that the _doctrine _behind decisionism is totally wrong, but the practice of having someone pray a prayer of repentance and trust, and then encouraging them that he is justified at the moment of faith, apart from works - I'm not sure I see what's so wrong with that. It could very well be true that he was saved at that moment of his 'decision.'


 
The biblically-ordained dividing line is not saying a particular prayer. It is membership in the visible church of Christ. Peter said at Pentecost, "Repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." I would not tell a person that he or she is in my view a Christian or "saved" until he or she makes a public profession and joins to the visible body of Christ, and that he or she has been baptized (either previous to or after repentence. The timing does not matter.) A credible profession of faith and membership in the visible church is sufficient for one to be considered a true Christian by other Christians. We do not have to wait to see their works from that point on before extending the right hand of fellowship.


----------



## AThornquist

Nova said:


> So, telling a new convert that he is saved is bad because we haven't any fruit yet (?) Is the temporal aspect the dividing line?
> 
> I can understand that the _doctrine _behind decisionism is totally wrong, but the practice of having someone pray a prayer of repentance and trust, and then encouraging them that he is justified at the moment of faith, apart from works - I'm not sure I see what's so wrong with that. It could very well be true that he was saved at that moment of his 'decision.'


 
We just need to be careful about who we label a "new convert." If we do not see faith and repentance, we have no biblical basis to be confident that a person is saved. If we are not in a position to know the new convert, we are obviously not in a position to see the validity of the claim to faith and thus judge charitably; nevertheless, we must understand that if the person does not endure in faith until the day of Christ or falls into gross sin totally unconvicted by the Holy Spirit, there is evidence that the person is a Christian in name only and actually unconverted.

I have a question for you: where in Scripture does "praying a prayer" evidence sudden conversion? ... Have you ever noticed how many false professions of faith there are in America? That is the result of having people "pray a prayer" then convincing them that they are regenerate when in fact many of them are totally lost and condemned. Decisionism is unbiblical and the fruit of the practice is clearly bad.

We _do_ encourage people to repent of their sins and place their faith in Christ alone for salvation, but "praying a prayer" as some sort of initiating spiritual work has no biblical precedence.


----------



## AThornquist

This is the testimony of _so many_ people. It speaks specifically about the issue addressed here in the thread. Was it a good thing that people convinced him that he was converted?

[video=youtube;SvDAygfVVX0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvDAygfVVX0[/video]


Here is an except from our Brother Paul Washer regarding his war against the Sinner's prayer. This is also relevant to this thread. 

[video=youtube;dc5lY9YP_bE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc5lY9YP_bE[/video]

If you want to hear a full and thorough sermon regarding Decisionism vs. True Regeneration, Paul Washer preached this at a conference in 2008:

If you just want the URL: YouTube - Regeneration v. The Idolatry of Decisional "Evangelism" (Paul Washer @ the Deeper Conference 2008 Breakout Session which was hosted by Living Waters & Way of the Master)

Or here is the video:

[video=youtube;shxQcczYuAA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shxQcczYuAA[/video]


----------



## steadfast7

Thanks for the uploaded videos above. 

I agree that the sinner's prayer is not the clincher to conversion and am more in line with the public profession and baptism as the visible sign that allows us to extend the right hand of fellowship. Interesting though that in the NT, baptism of new converts came almost immediately after the profession of faith. Thus they were immediately admitted to the church, and letters were written encouraging them in the salvation they had received (or were receiving). [BIBLE]eph 2:12-13[/BIBLE]
So what I see going on is Paul blanketing the church with lofty statements of their being in Christ, although there may be unregenerate ones there. I don't think a false sense security was propogated, because along with this were words of warning and exhortation. 

Perhaps the main fault of decisionist evangelism is that it is imbalanced. It gives them the assurance, but does not take the time to bring them properly into the visible church and under her discipline.


----------



## CharlieJ

In Suk,

Along with what you just posted, I would add that almost all forms of "decisionism" make belief in Christ a past act, something you "did". In Reformed theology, justifying faith persists throughout the life of a believer. So, in decisional churches, a person who no longer believes in Christ, even if he admits it, can still be regarded as saved because he "believed" at some point back there. There is no category, then, for true vs. false faith. 

If you want to see how decisionism really screws up perseverance and assurance, just read Charles Stanley's _Eternal Security_. It's horrendous.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

CharlieJ said:


> In Suk,
> 
> Along with what you just posted, I would add that almost all forms of "decisionism" make belief in Christ a past act, something you "did". In Reformed theology, justifying faith persists throughout the life of a believer. So, in decisional churches, a person who no longer believes in Christ, even if he admits it, can still be regarded as saved because he "believed" at some point back there. There is no category, then, for true vs. false faith.
> 
> If you want to see how decisionism really screws up perseverance and assurance, just read Charles Stanley's _Eternal Security_. It's horrendous.


 
Good point. This is true for the easy believism and "fire insurance" practitioners. On the other hand you have the Arminian types who believe that regeneration is a human decision which may be lost if one does not persevere through good works and will-power.


----------



## AThornquist

Nova said:


> Thanks for the uploaded videos above.
> 
> I agree that the sinner's prayer is not the clincher to conversion and am more in line with the public profession and baptism as the visible sign that allows us to extend the right hand of fellowship. Interesting though that in the NT, baptism of new converts came almost immediately after the profession of faith. Thus they were immediately admitted to the church, and letters were written encouraging them in the salvation they had received (or were receiving).



We don't know how much time was in between professions of faith and baptism most of the time; the number of verses in a text is not paralleled with an amount of time. Nevertheless, that was also in a society where making a profession of faith was a very serious act, which is definitely not the case in the West. With the many false ideas floating around with our so-called Western Christianity, we have to be quite discerning about what a person _means_ when they claim to believe in Jesus. 





> So what I see going on is Paul blanketing the church with lofty statements of their being in Christ, although there may be unregenerate ones there. I don't think a false sense security was propogated, because along with this were words of warning and exhortation.



I agree with your second sentence, but also remember what Paul wrote in Ephesians 1:1; the lofty statements of being in Christ are _to the faithful in Christ_. It is wrong to take Ephesians 2:12-13 out of that context. I repeat what was said earlier though: one may speak to an audience very broadly when a specific group is being addressed. A preacher can call the hearers on Sunday "beloved" even though he knows there are unbelievers in their midst; the sermon itself ought to define who is beloved, and it is the person in Christ.


----------



## steadfast7

> In Reformed theology, justifying faith persists throughout the life of a believer. So, in decisional churches, a person who no longer believes in Christ, even if he admits it, can still be regarded as saved because he "believed" at some point back there. There is no category, then, for true vs. false faith.



I'd like to delve into this a little further. True that justifying faith persists, but the act of justification occurs in a moment of time, that is how it can be considered a declarative act (hope I'm not wrong about that). The alone instrument that justifies is faith (of course, given as a gift through regeneration), and this saving faith occurs at a moment of time as well. It is not wrong to say that a person believes and is saved, or believed and was saved. Scripture uses this language frequently. It would be wrong to say that it is only persistent, works-producing faith that justifies. This would be against Reformed theology. I'm not saying you have said this, just that your wording might be construed as that. It is better to say that justifying faith produces the fruit of sanctification and perseverance. 

Agreed on the Charles Stanley bit. Horrendous. Again to restate, I agree the doctrine behind decisionism is flawed, but the language used by the evangelist-discipler in commending those who have believed with salvific benefits is what I see in scripture and everyday Christianity.

---------- Post added at 03:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:25 PM ----------




> remember what Paul wrote in Ephesians 1:1; the lofty statements of being in Christ are to the faithful in Christ. It is wrong to take Ephesians 2:12-13 out of that context. I repeat what was said earlier though: one may speak to an audience very broadly when a specific group is being addressed. A preacher can call the hearers on Sunday "beloved" even though he knows there are unbelievers in their midst; the sermon itself ought to define who is beloved, and it is the person in Christ.



I'm thinking, even if Paul is addressing those who are _presently faithful_, he does not know that they will _remain _faithful. But despite this possibility, he does not back off from using the lofty words to describe them. I think it's ok and fair to allow Paul, and us, to be finite human beings. We do not and cannot know the eternal status of anyone accept ourselves (as the Holy Spirit testifies to our spirits that we are children of God), so we are left to assume based on certain indicators such as faith and fruit in a believer's life. Even with decisionism being so bad, this act of speaking to and about people as if they are saved is very common.


----------



## cih1355

John 1:12-13 states, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." Christians have been born of God. Their own will did not cause them to be born again. They did not choose their own spiritual birth. 

Phil. 1:29 teaches that faith is gift of God. People do not cause themselves to have faith; God gives His people faith. 

The Philippian jailer neither regenerated himself nor caused himself to have faith. He trusted in Christ for his salvation and he was justified.


----------



## AThornquist

Nova said:


> I'm thinking, even if Paul is addressing those who are _presently faithful_, he does not know that they will _remain _faithful. But despite this possibility, he does not back off from using the lofty words to describe them. I think it's ok and fair to allow Paul, and us, to be finite human beings. We do not and cannot know the eternal status of anyone accept ourselves (as the Holy Spirit testifies to our spirits that we are children of God), so we are left to assume based on certain indicators such as faith and fruit in a believer's life. Even with decisionism being so bad, this act of speaking to and about people as if they are saved is very common.



He doesn't need to know if they will _remain_ faithful, because if they don't, the things he says obviously don't apply to them.  Like I said, I agree with you that we can only speak to an audience based on what we know. There are times that being more precise is very important though, such as a person who thinks he is converted after simply "praying the prayer." For the sake of their soul, adding the warnings and expected fruit from Scripture would in most circumstances be helpful, as it would cut down on the number of nominal Christians that "honestly think" they are Christians.


----------



## steadfast7

Agreed. No one decides to be justified by an act of his will, but that is not my concern in this thread. Rather, I think there is an overblown rejection of the methods of using the sinner's prayer, or saying to a new believer something like, "if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." The apostles said things like this with definiteness to their mixed audiences because it's the truth of the gospel. It's really no different from me rejoicing over your salvation right now, even though I'm not sure you will persevere. 

Remember, this style of evangelism comes from a uniquely protestant understanding of justification - that faith alone is the instrument that saves. Our Popish enemies did not invent this method; they would go to the other extreme and never assume anyone's salvation. I think it's a tribute to the gospel, that we as protestants can rejoice over a person's infantile faith.

As mentioned before, the real fault with sinner's prayer-style evangelism is not that it rejoices over faith, but that is touch-and-go and fails in its follow up, discipleship and inclusion into the local church.


----------



## Scott1

Good questions.



Nova said:


> Agreed. No one decides to be justified by an act of his will, but that is not my concern in this thread. Rather, I think there is an overblown rejection of the methods of using the sinner's prayer, or saying to a new believer something like, "if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." The apostles said things like this with definiteness to their mixed audiences because it's the truth of the gospel. It's really no different from me rejoicing over your salvation right now, even though I'm not sure you will persevere.
> 
> Remember, this style of evangelism comes from a uniquely protestant understanding of justification - that faith alone is the instrument that saves. Our Popish enemies did not invent this method; they would go to the other extreme and never assume anyone's salvation. I think it's a tribute to the gospel, that we as protestants can rejoice over a person's infantile faith.
> 
> As mentioned before, the real fault with sinner's prayer-style evangelism is not that it rejoices over faith, but that is touch-and-go and fails in its follow up, discipleship and inclusion into the local church.



This is difficult for many to understand because, as fallen creatures, with limited understanding, we are trying to understand the ways of a sovereign, limitless, eternal Creator, who does things out of the good pleasure of His own will.

While I understand what you are saying- that justification by faith alone is the instrument that saves us, particularly when it is contrast with the Roman system that adds works to that, we have to be even more careful than that.

It's actually the perfect works of Christ that saves us, and His perfect death pays the penalty for our sin. Faith in that _alone_ saves us.

What kind of faith "in that alone" is required?

The reformers described it in three aspects:

1) _noticia_
2) _assensus_
3) _fiducia_

The third requires a transferance of trust that continually abides and rests on that. This is something alien to fallen creatures, whose natures are bound by sin.

So, God has to do something first, and that is a miracle- He recreates the constituent nature of a human being so that it is freed from the bondage to sin, and may truly, savingly believe.

The faith that flows after that regeneration is necessary and immediate, because it reflects what God has changed.

So, in a sense, we are commanded to have it. But it in no way comes from us ours, and the saving aspects of the faith are a gift from God, also. It does not come from us, and we are totally dependent on God for it.



> Ephesians 2
> 
> 8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
> 
> 9Not of works, lest any man should boast.



The saving faith is from God, yet we are commanded to have it, for without it is sin, and leaves one in His sin, to face the just condemnation and wrath of God that sin deserves.


----------



## steadfast7

Thanks for the post Scott. I would you say that it's possible emphasize and teach this to the new believer in the context of the local church without withholding the precious truths that scripture says of him who believes. In our fear of giving new believers a false sense of security, do we maybe hold back from lavishing the rich assurances of the gospel?

I see a parallel with covenant children. We call them recipients of covenant blessings and promises, and treat and recognize them as Christians, even if they are rotten little kids. In all of this we do not know that status of their election nor speculate about it. etc, etc.


----------



## Scott1

What you are saying is very understandable, and commonly thought and said.

A brand new believer is saved in spite of his lack of understanding of many of the truths of God's Word. And teaching what God did (e.g. how great the sin, and how great the redemption) is an ongoing part of teaching, and a basis for a life of gratitude to Christ. What becomes more apparent as one grows in Christ is more how really sinful we are, and how really amazing it is that God chose to save us, undeserving though we are.

This can very easily get lost when we say that somehow our decision initiated God's grace or had some part in our getting salvation.

The amazing thing about salvation is that we are totally, 100%, absolutely dependent on God for it- from start to finish.

---------- Post added at 06:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 PM ----------

The idea of covenant blessings is something different, and we don't want to confuse or mix it with salvation by grace through faith (in Christ's righteousness) alone.

We look at the covenant community as believers and their children, who comprise the visible church. (I'm aware there are some different interpretations on that).

As in Israel, not everyone in the visible community is saved. Not everyone circumcised in Israel was saved.

So what does it represent?

For the infant child of a believer, it means he is set apart to a position of privilege- having at least one believing parent, and a covenant community. Through these come the "ordinary means" of grace God has provided His people- the Word, prayer, the sacraments. The child of a nonbeliever does not have these.

We have an ordinary pattern in Scripture of God working through families. Not exclusively, but ordinarily. There are promises of blessing generationally for obedience- not a guarantee of salvation, but a more likely environment for it because the ordinary means of grace God has ordained ordinarily come through that.

Remember, God ordains both the ends (salvation),

and

the means (preaching the Word).


----------

