Something that bothers me is to see what has become of preaching in many evangelical churches. I've seen this in different denominations and non-denominational churches.
The preacher preaches on some topic out of the Bible, but not salvation, not the cross, not the person and work of Christ, but has a little tag-on altar call or 'prayer for salvation' for people to repeat while they remain in their seats. To set up for the prayer he:
- Does not explain Who God is.
- Does not explain Who Jesus is.
- Does not explain what happened on the cross.
- Does not tell the audience that Jesus rose from the dead.
He is sure to tell the audience one of the following.
- It's not a religion. It's a relationship.
- Ask Jesus into your heart.
- Accept Christ.
Without any real explanation of the jargon, he leads people in a prayer. He says if they believe it, they are saved.
Can people be saved by mentioning the name of Jesus if they do not know Who He is? I have a Mexican friend named Jesus. Do people get saved whenever they say his name?
When I was a child, I heard a lot of 'sinner's prayers', but they were preceded by teaching on the cross and an explanation of some key doctrines of the faith, including the resurrection of Christ. The prayer was closely tied to this passage:
Romans 10
9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Here is another passage that summarizes the Gospel
I Corinthians 15
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.
Paul writes to them as former idol worshippers in chapter 12. But even so, he must have gone through the Old Testament scriptures to show that Christ would die for their sins and rise from the dead when he evangelized them.
If Paul taught that Christ dying for our sins and His resurrection were a part of the Gospel that saved, why do many preachers leave this out?
And why is 'Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship' come to be deemed so important that it is included when the cross and resurrection are omitted? Almost every English Bible translation renders James 1:27 to indicate that there is such a thing as pure religion that is undefined before God. 'Religion' did not used to be a bad word in church when I was a child. I first heard the idea that religion was man reaching out to God, and Christianity was God reaching out to man probably in 1981. By the end of the decade, preachers were preaching to audiences that religion was a bad thing.
I would imagine most unbelievers, especially the unchurched, would think that 'religion' actually means something along the lines of what it means in the dictionary and the way everyone else uses the term who is not in the evangelical subcultural bubble-- beliefs and practices related to God or gods.
Why is persuading unbelievers of a non-standard definition of 'religion' deemed more important than the gospel of Jesus Christ? And are people going to be saved if they pray a prayer that just mentions the name of Jesus if they do not believe the Gospel? No doubt, many of Christ's opponents in the Gospel uttered his name before. Were they saved. And believing Christ died on the cross does not save, or else those who crucified him, both Jewish people who demanded it and the Romans who carried it out, would have all been saved. They believed Jesus died on the cross. But the idea that He had risen was more controversial with them.
Has anyone else noticed this? I've seen it in churches and I see it on TV preacher programs. The strange thing is, it seems like most preachers and audience are oblivious to what is going on? This seems a rather simple thing. It seems like preachers and the audience must believe that people are saved by repeating a prayer, whether they heard the Gospel or not. They would probably disagree if I put it this way.
If you are a preacher, preach the gospel. If you are in an audience and you hear an 'altar call' or some kind of call to repeat a prayer at the end of the sermon, please speak with or send a message to the preacher and tell him what you heard and did not hear. If every preacher who did this got a lot of comments on leading people in prayer without preaching the Gospel, things might change.
The preacher preaches on some topic out of the Bible, but not salvation, not the cross, not the person and work of Christ, but has a little tag-on altar call or 'prayer for salvation' for people to repeat while they remain in their seats. To set up for the prayer he:
- Does not explain Who God is.
- Does not explain Who Jesus is.
- Does not explain what happened on the cross.
- Does not tell the audience that Jesus rose from the dead.
He is sure to tell the audience one of the following.
- It's not a religion. It's a relationship.
- Ask Jesus into your heart.
- Accept Christ.
Without any real explanation of the jargon, he leads people in a prayer. He says if they believe it, they are saved.
Can people be saved by mentioning the name of Jesus if they do not know Who He is? I have a Mexican friend named Jesus. Do people get saved whenever they say his name?
When I was a child, I heard a lot of 'sinner's prayers', but they were preceded by teaching on the cross and an explanation of some key doctrines of the faith, including the resurrection of Christ. The prayer was closely tied to this passage:
Romans 10
9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Here is another passage that summarizes the Gospel
I Corinthians 15
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.
Paul writes to them as former idol worshippers in chapter 12. But even so, he must have gone through the Old Testament scriptures to show that Christ would die for their sins and rise from the dead when he evangelized them.
If Paul taught that Christ dying for our sins and His resurrection were a part of the Gospel that saved, why do many preachers leave this out?
And why is 'Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship' come to be deemed so important that it is included when the cross and resurrection are omitted? Almost every English Bible translation renders James 1:27 to indicate that there is such a thing as pure religion that is undefined before God. 'Religion' did not used to be a bad word in church when I was a child. I first heard the idea that religion was man reaching out to God, and Christianity was God reaching out to man probably in 1981. By the end of the decade, preachers were preaching to audiences that religion was a bad thing.
I would imagine most unbelievers, especially the unchurched, would think that 'religion' actually means something along the lines of what it means in the dictionary and the way everyone else uses the term who is not in the evangelical subcultural bubble-- beliefs and practices related to God or gods.
Why is persuading unbelievers of a non-standard definition of 'religion' deemed more important than the gospel of Jesus Christ? And are people going to be saved if they pray a prayer that just mentions the name of Jesus if they do not believe the Gospel? No doubt, many of Christ's opponents in the Gospel uttered his name before. Were they saved. And believing Christ died on the cross does not save, or else those who crucified him, both Jewish people who demanded it and the Romans who carried it out, would have all been saved. They believed Jesus died on the cross. But the idea that He had risen was more controversial with them.
Has anyone else noticed this? I've seen it in churches and I see it on TV preacher programs. The strange thing is, it seems like most preachers and audience are oblivious to what is going on? This seems a rather simple thing. It seems like preachers and the audience must believe that people are saved by repeating a prayer, whether they heard the Gospel or not. They would probably disagree if I put it this way.
If you are a preacher, preach the gospel. If you are in an audience and you hear an 'altar call' or some kind of call to repeat a prayer at the end of the sermon, please speak with or send a message to the preacher and tell him what you heard and did not hear. If every preacher who did this got a lot of comments on leading people in prayer without preaching the Gospel, things might change.
