'Religion versus Personal Relationship' Replaced the Gospel in Many Evangelical Churches

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

marksman

My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
Feb 27, 2008
5,578
2,446
113
82
Melbourne Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I write about the presentation of the Gospel here.

Problems with the Modern Evangelical Approach to Evangelism

1. It leaves out the Gospel.


2. Telling People Not to Be Religious and How 'Personal' Everything is Not Particularly Helpful


3. Our Relationship with God is the Result of Our Believing the Gospel


4. The Ritual Replaces the Biblical Role of Baptism
In Acts 2, Peter preached about Jesus dying on a tree and being raised from the dead, that He was both Lord and Christ. When his listeners were smitten to the heart and asked what they should do, he told them to repent and be baptized. We see this all throughout Acts. Peter decided the Gentiles at Cornelius house should be baptized. The Samaritans received Philip's message and were baptized. Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch. Paul baptized the jailer. Many Corinthians were baptized.

In the Great Commission, Jesus did not say to go into the world and tell the nations to repeat a prayer accepting him. He did want the apostles to preach the Gospel, to baptize the nations, and to teach them what He had commanded. No wonder Peter baptized.

The ritual of repeating a prayer after a preacher came into widespread use through Billy Graham. There was a gradual evolution of evangelistic technique. Finney had the 'anxious seat' and even acknowledged that it occupied a similar role as baptism in the Bible. Why would those who do not believe in infant baptism not just baptize when they get to that point? Other evangelists would have audiences respond by shaking the preacher's hand, fill out cards, or pray with counselors. Billy Graham crusades had counselors. The counselors had a prayer to repeat. Eventually, as the crowds grew, Billy Graham had the audience repeat the prayer after him. Many evangelicals copied this method.

A generation or so later, I actually heard a preacher say, "If you have not prayed that prayer, you are not a Christian." What crazy false doctrine! As if the saints in the early church who lived before repeating a prayer weren't Christians. What started as a tool to help people confess their sin to God while at the same time confessing faith that Jesus is Lord and that He rose from the dead was treated as a ritual that saved. Now, many preachers strip their sermons and sinner's prayers of the Gospel content-- the atonement on the cross, the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lordship and Messiahship of Jesus, and have the audience repeat a prayer. The ritual of repeating a prayer after the preacher is treated as the means of salvation.
I write about the presentation of the Gospel here.

I have been to many churches that have altar calls, or nowadays challenge people to pray at their seats. What seems to be the norm is to follow the script below:

- Preach a sermon that is not really salvation-focused.
- Do not explain to the audience Who God is.
- Do not explain to the audience Who Jesus is.
- Maybe, or maybe not mention that Jesus died on the cross. Do not discuss the atonement.
- Do not tell the audience that God raised Jesus from the dead.
- Tell the audience that religion is bad, and that they do not need religion.
- Tell the audience that they need a personal relationship with God or tell them they need a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
- Offer the audience some sort of emotional comfort if they become a Christian.
- Have the audience repeat a prayer that mentions Jesus, asking Him into their lives.
- Tell the audience if they believed what they prayed, they are born again.

Some of you may say, "They don't do this with the altar call/ sinner's prayer at my church." I hope this is the case. I think a lot of Christian's churches do this, and they aren't paying attention to what the pastor says. I think a lot of these pastors aren't paying attention to what they say, either.

Problems with the Modern Evangelical Approach to Evangelism


3. Our Relationship with God is the Result of Our Believing the Gospel

4. The Ritual Replaces the Biblical Role of Baptism
In Acts 2, Peter preached about Jesus dying on a tree and being raised from the dead, that He was both Lord and Christ. When his listeners were smitten to the heart and asked what they should do, he told them to repent and be baptized. We see this all throughout Acts. Peter decided the Gentiles at Cornelius house should be baptized. The Samaritans received Philip's message and were baptized. Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch. Paul baptized the jailer. Many Corinthians were baptized.

In the Great Commission, Jesus did not say to go into the world and tell the nations to repeat a prayer accepting him. He did want the apostles to preach the Gospel, to baptize the nations, and to teach them what He had commanded. No wonder Peter baptized.

The ritual of repeating a prayer after a preacher came into widespread use through Billy Graham. There was a gradual evolution of evangelistic technique. Finney had the 'anxious seat' and even acknowledged that it occupied a similar role as baptism in the Bible. Why would those who do not believe in infant baptism not just baptize when they get to that point? Other evangelists would have audiences respond by shaking the preacher's hand, fill out cards, or pray with counselors. Billy Graham crusades had counselors. The counselors had a prayer to repeat. Eventually, as the crowds grew, Billy Graham had the audience repeat the prayer after him. Many evangelicals copied this method.

A generation or so later, I actually heard a preacher say, "If you have not prayed that prayer, you are not a Christian." What crazy false doctrine! As if the saints in the early church who lived before repeating a prayer weren't Christians. What started as a tool to help people confess their sin to God while at the same time confessing faith that Jesus is Lord and that He rose from the dead was treated as a ritual that saved. Now, many preachers strip their sermons and sinner's prayers of the Gospel content-- the atonement on the cross, the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lordship and Messiahship of Jesus, and have the audience repeat a prayer. The ritual of repeating a prayer after the preacher is treated as the means of salvation.

A couple of weeks ago we had our silver seventies lunch, a meal for those 70 and over. During the course of the conversation, I said that nowhere in scripture are we told to accept Jesus into our hearts. That set the cat amongst the pigeons. what about this verse and what about that verse. My reply "what about the day of Pentecost when they were told to repent and be baptised..." mumble, mumble, mumble.

I love church history and have studied it for yonks. I have more books on church history than any other subject in my personal library of about 1,000 books. One obvious thing to notice is that the church is totally dependent on formulas. Someone comes up with a good idea that seems to work so we must do it for the next 500 years and if someone suggests changing anything...oh dear no as it has worked for 500 years.

Face facts. The protestant church is a revised version of Roman Catholicism. During the Reformation, the church changed its doctrine in several areas for the better but it did not change its practices. The protestant pastor is a throwback to the catholic priest. The communion is a throwback to the catholic mass. The protestant church adopted many catholic practices and gave them a different name.

As a result, the protestant church is as mired in tradition as the catholic was and is. When that happens, the scripture takes second place to tradition. Accepting Jesus into your heart has become the tradition so the scripture injunction to repent and be baptised is no longer valid.

Another thing. On the day of Pentecost, about 3000 men were baptised. No baptismal classes here. No singing of a hymn when the person is baptised.

I wonder what the church would be like if we did what the scripture tells us to do?
 
Last edited:

Soverign Grace

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2018
2,948
1,708
113
73
Palmyra
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I write about the presentation of the Gospel here.

I have been to many churches that have altar calls, or nowadays challenge people to pray at their seats. What seems to be the norm is to follow the script below:

- Preach a sermon that is not really salvation-focused.
- Do not explain to the audience Who God is.
- Do not explain to the audience Who Jesus is.
- Maybe, or maybe not mention that Jesus died on the cross. Do not discuss the atonement.
- Do not tell the audience that God raised Jesus from the dead.
- Tell the audience that religion is bad, and that they do not need religion.
- Tell the audience that they need a personal relationship with God or tell them they need a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
- Offer the audience some sort of emotional comfort if they become a Christian.
- Have the audience repeat a prayer that mentions Jesus, asking Him into their lives.
- Tell the audience if they believed what they prayed, they are born again.

Some of you may say, "They don't do this with the altar call/ sinner's prayer at my church." I hope this is the case. I think a lot of Christian's churches do this, and they aren't paying attention to what the pastor says. I think a lot of these pastors aren't paying attention to what they say, either.

Problems with the Modern Evangelical Approach to Evangelism


1. It leaves out the Gospel.
The problem is that the 'Gospel' presentation above is so different from the Biblical Gospel. Take this example from Paul's writings

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.

We see in the apostle's sermons in Acts, that they preached the death of Christ. They preached the Lordship of Christ. The evangelistic sermons pay special attention to the resurrection of Christ.

You can believe Jesus died on the cross without being saved. Caiaphas believed that. The pagan Romans who beat Jesus and saw Him crucified believed that. Those who mocked him on the cross believed that. Believing that He rose from the dead is the controversial topic. And also a quite essential one.

Romans 10:9-10
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.

When I was a child, I heard plenty of 'sinner's prayers' based on this verse where the individual confessed Jesus as Lord and that He rose from the dead. It seems like there are a lot of pastors who just follow a religious script they heard from other preachers about religion being bad and needing a relationship, who, if you asked them point blank that someone has to believe that Jesus rose from the dead to be saved, they might say 'yes', but they do not pay attention to the fact that they are not preaching the Gospel.

2. Telling People Not to Be Religious and How 'Personal' Everything is Not Particularly Helpful
American Evangelicals have redefined the word 'religion' in my own lifetime to be something bad. When I was a kid, church people did not have a problem with the word 'religion.' There was an old song, "Give me that old time religion." Then some evangelists started saying that religion is men reaching out to God, but Christianity is God reaching out to men. By the 1990's, I heard a preacher say religion is bad and not to be religious.

The typical unbeliever has no clue what these evangelicals are talking about. If religion is bad, why are they in church?

Then you have all these people out there who don't want to be 'religious'-- so there are people who oppose scheduled prayer times. There are people who do not go to church maybe because they heard that 'all that matters is your personal relationship with Jesus' and they believed this unbiblical message. There are people who call themselves 'not religious but spiritual'. They won't discuss the Gospel with you because "It's personal."

Isn't it a shame when preachers add unnecessary stuff to the Gospel and unbelievers throw it back in our faces.

3. Our Relationship with God is the Result of Our Believing the Gospel
We can have a relationship with God because we believe the Gospel, that Christ died for our sins and that He rose again from the dead. We pass from death unto life. We don't get people saved by telling them they can have a personal relationship with God without preaching the Gospel whereby they can be saved.

4. The Ritual Replaces the Biblical Role of Baptism
In Acts 2, Peter preached about Jesus dying on a tree and being raised from the dead, that He was both Lord and Christ. When his listeners were smitten to the heart and asked what they should do, he told them to repent and be baptized. We see this all throughout Acts. Peter decided the Gentiles at Cornelius house should be baptized. The Samaritans received Philip's message and were baptized. Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch. Paul baptized the jailer. Many Corinthians were baptized.

In the Great Commission, Jesus did not say to go into the world and tell the nations to repeat a prayer accepting him. He did want the apostles to preach the Gospel, to baptize the nations, and to teach them what He had commanded. No wonder Peter baptized.

The ritual of repeating a prayer after a preacher came into widespread use through Billy Graham. There was a gradual evolution of evangelistic technique. Finney had the 'anxious seat' and even acknowledged that it occupied a similar role as baptism in the Bible. Why would those who do not believe in infant baptism not just baptize when they get to that point? Other evangelists would have audiences respond by shaking the preacher's hand, fill out cards, or pray with counselors. Billy Graham crusades had counselors. The counselors had a prayer to repeat. Eventually, as the crowds grew, Billy Graham had the audience repeat the prayer after him. Many evangelicals copied this method.

A generation or so later, I actually heard a preacher say, "If you have not prayed that prayer, you are not a Christian." What crazy false doctrine! As if the saints in the early church who lived before repeating a prayer weren't Christians. What started as a tool to help people confess their sin to God while at the same time confessing faith that Jesus is Lord and that He rose from the dead was treated as a ritual that saved. Now, many preachers strip their sermons and sinner's prayers of the Gospel content-- the atonement on the cross, the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lordship and Messiahship of Jesus, and have the audience repeat a prayer. The ritual of repeating a prayer after the preacher is treated as the means of salvation.

There is a new crop of "pastors" on TV I noted when I flipped a Christian station on. It's such a shame that they mislead. But if a searching individual really wants the truth Scripture says "Ye shall seek me and find me when ye search for me with all your heart." So we can still find God in spite of the false teachers. There was a time I took everything that I got from radio preachers and burned it in the wood stove. I determined to find God - the real God - myself. That worked for me.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
I read in one of Don Richardson's book the alleged history of the event. Athens was having a famine or pestilence. They sacrificed to their gods but nothing helped. They got desperate so they called in a foreign wise man-- one of the poets he quotes if not mistaken--who tells them that they have offended a God, but since they do not know which one, they should not make an image of him. They were to make three monuments 'to the unknown God.' They would pen up sheep and not feed them. The ones that just laid down when they came out, they would sacrifice to the unknown God. So they did so and the problem stopped. Supposedly, only one of these monuments was left. Richardson's argument as that this was something of the true God in their culture, and he argued that many cultures had something in their culture through which the Gospel could be related.

The 'in him we live and move and have our being quote' is said to be about Zeus in an 8th century AD manuscript. I kind of like to think the original did not mention Zeus because that makes me uncomfortable. I am sure Paul was not trying to teach them that their Zeus-- which they associated with Baal elsewhere, was the true creator God.

The Greek translation of Jesus is, "Iesous" which is a word play on the name of Zeus. It can mean anything from "Hail Zeus" to "son of Zeus". Word play is pervasive throughout the entire bible, and this is no exception

To say, "in him, we live and move and have our being" is inspired wouldn't you agree? The question for Christians is, did it become inspired by God when it was introduced into one of Paul's letters, or was it inspired when first uttered by the original author?

The essential idea is the same. This is where your notion that relationship isn't important comes into play because when one comes into direct contact with the one and only God of all creation, it isn't likely that he is going to have a name tag on, or even require that you address him. Christians in the middle east refer to God as "Allah". It's the convention.

Divine revelation has to be limited to those who are receiving it. With Moses, he is only able to recognize that God is eternal being summed up in the name "I AM", "The Eternal", or perhaps eternal potential e.g. "I will be" Jesus comes along and makes it a bit more personal with "Daddy"(Hebrew "abba") Revelation is progressive. It can't happen all at once because we can't process it all at once. We have to grow into God's revelations.

Jesus comes along and never once points out that there is a way to salvation. He points out that one must be the way. The early church understood this, and lived it. They referred to themselves as "the way". They adopted Christ's title because he gave it to them. He says, "You are the light of the world", and that can only come through self sacrifice. That's the gospel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

A_Man

Active Member
Nov 8, 2019
125
39
28
51
Atlanta area
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Greek translation of Jesus is, "Iesous" which is a word play on the name of Zeus. It can mean anything from "Hail Zeus" to "son of Zeus". Word play is pervasive throughout the entire bible, and this is no exception

No offense. But that appears to be a poor attempt at folk etymology you are repeating. I visited a meeting of people who were into Hebrew roots stuff. I think they call this the sacred name movement. They would say stuff like this. One of them forwarded me the book they got their ideas from. I have a degree in Linguistics. The man's approach to deriving etymology was messed up. Their version might have been that Iesous derived from Isis, though. I'd challenge anyone to find any documentation of Iesous deriving from Zeus-- any attestations to 'hail Zeus' connected to Iesous. Iesous is how they transliterated Yeshua or Yehoshua into Greek. Greek did not have a specific letter 'sh' and Hebrew shared the same letter for 's' ans Sh' minus a little mark, and I don't know if they had that at the time of the translation of the Septuagint or not. Greek masculine names end with an S sound. The final letter is an unusual choice but it reflects the shape of the Hebrew final letter in the Canaanite alphabet used post-Ezra at least. Yehoshua (Joshua) is transliterated as 'Iesous' in the Septuagint. There is no need for a complicated unattested etymological argument about it deriving from Zeus.

A online acquaintance of mine who is into Messianic stuff who planted house churches in Israel says when Hebrew-speaking Messianics get around the people who believe in this sacred name stuff, they think it is ridiculous because what they do not know what they are talking about when it comes to Hebrew.

I mentioned Don Richardson who wrote Eternity in their Hearts. I liked the book, but I think he had some junk folk etymology in his book. As an undergrad, I asked a professor of mine who is an expert at Proto-IndoEuropean reconstruction and etymology, who knew over 30 languages, whether Theos derived from Zeus. He was able to show me both of the etymologies on the chalk board in Historical Linguistics class when I asked the question, and they did not derive from the same source. This is all based on theoretical reconstruction, I believe, but he presented a strong case against Richardson's assertion.

To say, "in him, we live and move and have our being" is inspired wouldn't you agree? The question for Christians is, did it become inspired by God when it was introduced into one of Paul's letters, or was it inspired when first uttered by the original author?

Christians in the middle east refer to God as "Allah". It's the convention.

That one might actually be cognate with Elohim. That's what I was taught in Arabic class, I think it was, that Allah is supposed to be a contraction of Al 'illah, and 'illah is cognate with 'Eloah in Hebrew. 'Al 'illah contracting to 'Allah does not follow the regular rules of Arabic, though.

I am not saying relationship is unimportant. I do not say it is wrong to tell unbelievers about the benefits of salvation, like God being Abba Father, having a relationship with Him, peace, job, eternal life, not being punished in Hell, etc.

What I am against is leaving out Who God is and Who Jesus is if the audience does not know, and leaving out the fact that Christ paid for our sins on the cross and that God raised him from the dead. Will preaching about the benefits of salvation without preaching the things we believe through which we are saved save people?

I do not see much value in preaching against 'religion', especially without an explanation. I don't see why Christians have to redefine the term to get the gospel across. It seems like a red herring to me, and one that has produced some negative effects, since a lot of things Christians should do are 'religious'-- like pray, assemble, read the Bible.

What if someone repeats a prayer so he can have a personal relationship with God, but does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the Christ, Who died on the cross on the cross for their sins and rose from the dead? How are they going to believe these things unless they hear the message?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philip James

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
No offense. But that appears to be a poor attempt at folk etymology you are repeating.
No offense taken. I'm not really speaking about etymology, but Hebraisms which can be easily carried into other languages, even Greek and English. Again, there are numerou word plays throughout these texts that have no relation to word etymology whatsoever. One of the best that seems to translate seamlessly from one language to another is the story of Balaam who was a prophet for profit. No one is claiming that there is any root connecting these terms together. They're simply reinforcing the actual message of the story. There's quite an interesting one with Pilate's name which has suddenly escaped me, but well worth the search to retrieve it again. Another would be Judas Iscariot which is a word play on Judah Sicariot which means "Jewish Assassin". They sound almost identical. That's what these word plays are all about.
That one might actually be cognate with Elohim.
They both mean "God" which is my point. People get hung up on nomenclature, and miss the big picture.
I do not say it is wrong to tell unbelievers about the benefits of salvation, like God being Abba Father, having a relationship with Him, peace, job, eternal life, not being punished in Hell, etc.
This falls under the category of: " Isn't it a shame when preachers add unnecessary stuff to the Gospel and unbelievers throw it back in our faces."
What I am against is leaving out Who God is and Who Jesus is if the audience does not know, and leaving out the fact that Christ paid for our sins on the cross and that God raised him from the dead.
Again, you're basically putting the cart before the horse. You're talking about building a clock, when they don't even know what time it is.
Will preaching about the benefits of salvation without preaching the things we believe through which we are saved save people?
The things one believes are not what saves anyone. Belief is a consequence of salvation, not a means of salvation. Too many people aren't proclaiming the gospel at all, and without hearing the gospel, no one can be saved. However, I have also seen numerous people state the gospel message without actually hearing it themselves. They then go into much elaborate and unnecessary detail while the person they've just proclaimed the gospel to has just received the gospel message and been saved.
I do not see much value in preaching against 'religion', especially without an explanation. I don't see why Christians have to redefine the term to get the gospel across.
One doesn't need to bring the subject up to begin with. As Weseley supposedly once said, "Proclaim the gospel. Use words if necessary".

What if someone repeats a prayer so he can have a personal relationship with God, but does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the Christ, Who died on the cross on the cross for their sins and rose from the dead? How are they going to believe these things unless they hear the message?
What if someone actually receives the gospel message and is saved, but has a different understanding than you do? Can you tell that they're saved anyways? There is all the difference between the understanding one has of their faith verses the faith seeking understanding, but neither precludes one from salvation.[/QUOTE]
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

prism

Blood-Soaked
Jan 24, 2011
1,895
834
113
So. Cal
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Why would people who are already Christians expect the Gospel to be preached to them? That is what they, themselves, are supposed to be taking to unsaved people in their sphere of life outside the walls of the church.
I'll tell you why. Because Christians need the Gospel also as we continually lapse into our self righteous ways and forget the ditch we were pulled out of.
 

A_Man

Active Member
Nov 8, 2019
125
39
28
51
Atlanta area
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Another would be Judas Iscariot which is a word play on Judah Sicariot which means "Jewish Assassin". They sound almost identical. That's what these word plays are all about.

I have read the opinion that that was his name, not just a word play. I'm not sure how the Aramaic (or Hebrew?) would transliterate into Greek. It could be the last two in the list of apostles is Simon the Zealot and Judas the Sicarii-- a subset of Zealots. I wonder if they were sent out together. It seems likely since the apostles in Matthew 10 seem to be in pairs.

They both mean "God" which is my point. People get hung up on nomenclature, and miss the big picture.

This falls under the category of: " Isn't it a shame when preachers add unnecessary stuff to the Gospel and unbelievers throw it back in our faces."

I did not mean adding Biblical truths that appeal to people to persuade them. I think that is good, including things about fellowship with God. That's all good. I am talking about adding concepts that aren't really Biblical, like the red herring about religion or overemphasis on 'personal' to the extent that the listeners think church is not important.
Again, you're basically putting the cart before the horse. You're talking about building a clock, when they don't even know what time it is.
I think we are in agreement that this is a problem, that people need to know who God is before they can understand the Gospel.

The things one believes are not what saves anyone. Belief is a consequence of salvation, not a means of salvation.

That last statement is odd. I think I have met primitive Baptists who say that, but I don't see that kind of thinking in the Bible. By faith we are saved through faith. We have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. What did John say of one who does not believe that Jesus is the Son of GOd.

One doesn't need to bring the subject up to begin with. As Weseley supposedly once said, "Proclaim the gospel. Use words if necessary".

Did he quote Francis of Assisi? As much as Wesley preached, I'd be surprised if he held to that philosophy.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
I have read the opinion that that was his name, not just a word play.
It could be just word play. It can't be just his name.

I'm not sure how the Aramaic (or Hebrew?) would transliterate into Greek.
It translates all the way into Latin, Spanish, etc. as Jewish Assassin. Perhaps you may have heard about a movie that came out a few years ago titled "Sicario"? Google it. It means "Assassin", or "hit man"," Zealots" etc.
I am talking about adding concepts that aren't really Biblical, like the red herring about religion or overemphasis on 'personal' to the extent that the listeners think church is not important.
It's a false assumption, or perhaps a false idea of "personal". No doubt there are those who claim a personal relationship which precludes them from participating in the life of the body; it's a false relationship. There can be no relationship with the body without it being personal though; the person of Christ.

I think we are in agreement that this is a problem, that people need to know who God is before they can understand the Gospel.
No. The father draws those he conforms to Christ. When the tax collector is sitting on his pile of money, and Christ says, "Follow me", it's a no-brainer. He doesn't have to think about anything. He simply gets up, and leaves that pile of garbage because he's just seen the source of life itself.

That last statement is odd, but I don't see that kind of thinking in the Bible. By faith we are saved through faith. We have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. What did John say of one who does not believe that Jesus is the Son of GOd.
This is still putting the cart before the horse. Context is key to rightly dividing the word. No one is denying that believing in Christ is an integral piece of the puzzle, but it has to be a consequence of salvation, otherwise Paul's letters make no sense. No one can please God. Anyone can repent, believe, profess that Christ has come in the flesh to live a perfect life, and die for the salvation of mankind, etc., and that will not save anyone because it is all done in the flesh.
Again, as you started to post it already, "by grace through faith, and that NOT OF YOURSELVES, not of works lest anyone boast" It is the faith OF Christ implanted in the believer that allows them to believe in the first place. This is what allows the new creature in Christ to confess (not to be confused with a "profession" of faith). A confession can only be made by one who has "tasted the goodness of the Lord". One who has had the kingdom revealed to them is a "witness". Those who profess a faith have not witnessed anything.
One can readily identify God and understand the gospel perfectly, and be no closer to salvation than the vessel fitted for destruction. It must make that seemingly infinite journey from the intellect to the heart, and only God can make that happen. There's a quite poignant story of a pastor who had been nurturing his flock for over fifteen years when one Sunday morning while preaching the gospel message, he finally got it, and even notified his congregation that he had just heard the gospel and been saved; quite an admission to make to a church one has been pastoring for fifteen years, no?
Did he quote Francis of Assisi? As much as Wesley preached, I'd be surprised if he held to that philosophy.
It's not really important who said it. The point is that salvation doesn't come through an accurate profession of church doctrine. It comes through God pricking, and opening the heart allowing His spirit to convict, and offer the gift of repentance which then allows one to believe the good news; the fact that Christ is in you, advancing, overtaking, and absorbing you into him; "I must decrease that he may increase". It is a complete loss of identity in Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VictoryinJesus

prism

Blood-Soaked
Jan 24, 2011
1,895
834
113
So. Cal
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I do find it curious that the term 'a personal relationship with God' is not in the bible but the concept is all over the pages of Scripture. I think what the OP is emphasizing is that altar calls, 'repeat formulas', and other man made devices are not the way to enter into this 'personal relationship' with God, but only through His death, resurrection and indwelling Spirit.
 

A_Man

Active Member
Nov 8, 2019
125
39
28
51
Atlanta area
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It could be just word play. It can't be just his name.

What I mean is that it argued that he was being called a member of that group, like Simon Zealotes was named after the other group of Zealots.

It translates all the way into Latin, Spanish, etc. as Jewish Assassin. Perhaps you may have heard about a movie that came out a few years ago titled "Sicario"? Google it. It means "Assassin", or "hit man"," Zealots" etc.

Does it mean something like 'cut throat?' My mind goes to assassins being named after a Shiite Islam offshoot hundreds of years later.

This is still putting the cart before the horse. Context is key to rightly dividing the word. No one is denying that believing in Christ is an integral piece of the puzzle, but it has to be a consequence of salvation, otherwise Paul's letters make no sense.

That makes sense so far. But we arrive at the relationship through faith, it does not just come later.

Again, as you started to post it already, "by grace through faith, and that NOT OF YOURSELVES, not of works lest anyone boast" It is the faith OF Christ implanted in the believer that allows them to believe in the first place. This is what allows the new creature in Christ to confess

True. But those who experience this aren't intellectually assenting to the idea that Jesus did not rise from the dead. They aren't denying the faith. What do you say of I Corinthians 15:1-3?
 
B

brakelite

Guest
Jesus said at the beginning of His ministry...
KJV Mark 1
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
...And how did He do this?
KJV Acts 10
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
Jesus brought physical and mental health to the people before He preached to them regarding their spiritual health. He didn't do this by building a massive auditorium and advertising. One on one ministry...one day at a time...one person at a time. Now it is true that in the day of Pentecost and after, thousands were saved in one hit. But fresh in everyone's memories was Jesus healing. Everyone would have known someone personally touched by the power of God...if not themselves...which along with Peter's and John's preaching brought the response...what must we do.
We forget that the gospel isn't just words. It isn't a formula to be repeated like a magic spell. The gospel is a demonstration of power, and the faith to believe the gospel comes from experiencing and witnessing that demonstration.
I think that we have lost our way in that respect...leaving that demonstration of power up to the evangelists and TV folk who have been sidelined by hype and frauds. But as we "go about doing good", loving our neighbors as ourselves, the miracles will follow. And people will believe.
 

Nancy

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2018
16,761
25,324
113
Buffalo, Ny
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I've heard it said that Church was not a place for un-believers. Church is for worshiping God and being built up in The Spirit. It's like a school house for Christians to be well prepared for the Great Commission. :)
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
What I mean is that it argued that he was being called a member of that group, like Simon Zealotes was named after the other group of Zealots.
Again, you seem to be missing the point here. Regardless of whatever view you prefer, the word play fits perfectly. To say it is an unintentional accident is stretching credulity especially given the fact that these word plays are ubiquitous throughout the bible. Anything is possible, but the chances are highly unlikely that the word play was purely coincidental.
Does it mean something like 'cut throat?' My mind goes to assassins being named after a Shiite Islam offshoot hundreds of years later.
And they would probably use the term when referring to Judas Iscariot, but again this is beside the point. The point is that his name means Jewish killer, Jewish murderer, Jewish hit man, Jewish radical betrayer, etc., etc., etc.
That makes sense so far. But we arrive at the relationship through faith, it does not just come later.
A distinction with no effective difference. Christ is the faith that brings us into relationship with God, and the belief one has cannot come prior to receiving faith. This isn't to say one can't live as if they beleive the truth of the gospel, and this is strongly recommended due to the fact that it shows that one has a strong understanding of the benefits if they keep God's commandments. It won't save them, but it can draw us closer to reality. In other words, keeping the law shows us the wisdom of God's word which strengthens us and draws us to God, but this simply places in a position to receive the gospel which is that Christ in you is the cornerstone to keeping God's law perfectly. Christ in you, is what allows the kingdom to be manifest. It is in, with, and through Christ that God's will spreads.
True. But those who experience this aren't intellectually assenting to the idea that Jesus did not rise from the dead.
They aren't intellectually assenting to anything.
They aren't denying the faith.
They can't deny the faith. It's self evident through divine revelation. They're being drawn (some say "dragged") by the father to Christ. The intellect isn't involved at all. One doesn't really have a choice to begin with. Those who God draws to Christ are his. Christ paid for them. The shepherd does not approach the cast sheep, and ask them if they want to return to the sheepfold. The cast sheep has no choice in the matter. The choice is Christ's to pick him up and return him to where he belongs.

I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
Note that it is only by receiving the gospel that they can stand in the first place.
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
Again, it is in receiving, and abiding in it that they are saved.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
He's saying you can't give away what you didn't receive in the first place. Perhaps if you elaborate on your interpretation of whatever scriptures you think Paul is referring to here, it might help to understand why you come to your conclusion.
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Here again, what scriptures do you think Paul is referring to here, and why do you believe they somehow negate my position, and support yours?
 

Not me

Well-Known Member
May 8, 2019
1,696
1,945
113
66
California, Ca.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is Christianity, having a personal relationship with God through our Savior Jesus Christ--TO KNOW HIM and LOVE HIM! I get excited just thinking about my relationship with Him. Nothing compares to knowing Him!

I see your joy!
I see your hope and your love!

Be most blessed in your personal relationship with your Creator.. Put a good word in for the rest of us and we will do likewise. :)

May God grant you an increase of Himself in your innermost being and may you grow and prosper in all things... Keep that heart and relationship growing for great and greater still is your reward growing in Heaven.

Again I taste your joy and life, be so blessed in Him, Not me
 
Last edited:

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I see your joy!
I see your hope and your love!

Be most blessed in your personal relationship with your Creator.. Put a good word in for the rest of us and we will do likewise. :)

May God grant you an increase of Himself in your innermost being and may you grow and prosper in all things... Keep that heart and relationship growing for great and greater still is your reward growing in Heaven.

Again I taste your joy and life, be so blessed in Him, Not me

Not me, I have rarely received a reply that has blessed me as much as this one. If only we would all remember to uplift each other like this! I know I need to.

I gladly receive your blessing, and I pray that you will blessed ten-fold in return!
.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy and Not me

Not me

Well-Known Member
May 8, 2019
1,696
1,945
113
66
California, Ca.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Not me, I have rarely received a reply that has blessed me as much as this one. If only we would all remember to uplift each other like this! I know I need to.

I gladly receive your blessing, and I pray that you will blessed ten-fold in return!
.

Thanks, and received! :)

To God be the glory great things He has done.

God is good and getting to know this good God personally is Christianity. Thank you so much for the recognition of the encouragement, the peace of Christ in my heart was not wrong concerning you. (not that it ever is~ I’m, self, and listening is the problem).

Anyways, be blessed as you continue to search for Him with all your heart, for He has promised to be found by those that do.

In the Beloved, Not me
 

A_Man

Active Member
Nov 8, 2019
125
39
28
51
Atlanta area
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Again, you seem to be missing the point here. Regardless of whatever view you prefer, the word play fits perfectly. To say it is an unintentional accident is stretching credulity especially given the fact that these word plays are ubiquitous throughout the bible.
I don't see how you interpreted what I wrote that way. I read that his name meant Judas the Sicarii, calling him a member of that group.

Anything is possible, but the chances are highly unlikely that the word play was purely coincidental.

And they would probably use the term when referring to Judas Iscariot, but again this is beside the point. The point is that his name means Jewish killer, Jewish murderer, Jewish hit man, Jewish radical betrayer, etc., etc., etc.

It was a specific group named after daggers. It's unlikely that it would have had all those connotations, at least not to all people, likely not to their supporters.

A distinction with no effective difference.

I have heard of a group that teaches that people get saved first, then believe. That's pretty messed up and outright unbiblical.

They aren't intellectually assenting to anything.

They can't deny the faith. It's self evident through divine revelation. They're being drawn (some say "dragged") by the father to Christ. The intellect isn't involved at all. One doesn't really have a choice to begin with. Those who God draws to Christ are his. Christ paid for them.

I understand the long held debate over whether intellectual assent is the same as saving faith. But believing certain things are necessary to be saved. Romans 10:9-10 for example about the resurrection. I Corinthians 15 is another example. If someone believes that Jesus was the second best prophet, that He never died on the cross or raised from the dead, do you believe he can be saved?

The intellect is clearly involved in believing the word we hear. One does not have to be an intellectual, but the mind is involved.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
I don't see how you interpreted what I wrote that way. I read that his name meant Judas the Sicarii, calling him a member of that group.

You can interpret it however you please. The point is that Judah Sicrio literally means "Jewish hit man", and Judas Iscariot sounds almost exactly the same. It's a blatant word play.





It was a specific group named after daggers. It's unlikely that it would have had all those connotations, at least not to all people, likely not to their supporters.

We're all familiar with the etymology. You don't have to keep reminding us. The word play would have been intentional. The chances are quite high that Judas Iscariot didn't even exist. He's simply a literary device.



I have heard of a group that teaches that people get saved first, then believe. That's pretty messed up and outright unbiblical.

It's sound doctrine and right out of the bible. You don't choose Christ, he chooses you. "Flesh has not revealed this, but my father in heaven". "no man can please God" "No man is righteous". "No man comes to me unless the father draw him". Repentance is a gift, and only those who receive that gift can repent. Belief is a consequence of salvation.

Look at the parables in Luke's gospel just prior to where Jesus points out that only those who sell all their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor can be his followers. They all point out the fact that unless the kingdom is revealed first, no one can believe. You can't truly believe in what you have never known or seen. You can't believe until you hear the gospel message. Again, Jesus isn't suggesting that giving away all of one's worldly possessions is a means to following Christ, but that it is a consequence of God's revelation of the kingdom. It is inevitable.

Fallen humanity is incapable of believing in the gospel in the first place. They must be made whole in order to respond to it. God has to give Lazarus the ears to hear Christ's command to rise and walk out of his tomb. Dead bodies can't do anything, and that is the state of fallen humanity.

believing certain things are necessary to be saved. Romans 10:9-10 for example about the resurrection. I Corinthians 15 is another example. If someone believes that Jesus was the second best prophet, that He never died on the cross or raised from the dead, do you believe he can be saved?

You're still putting the cart before the horse. Revelation is what happens first. No one has the ability to know that they're spiritually dead until God reveals that to them. God gives fallen humanity a new heart which is what enables us to respond to the gospel message. Unless a man has the ears to hear, and respond to the gospel, they're dead in their sins. You're making essentially the same claim Jehovah's Witnesses make in that it matters how accurate one's knowledge is. They insist that Jesus was affixed to a stake rather than a cross. These particulars are of no consequence to those who are alive in Christ. You're trying to build a clock when all we need to know is what time it is.

Again, look who the gospel writers choose as examples of those who are saved: The pagan Centurion has more faith than everyone in Israel. The heretical Samaritan, and the Syro-phoenician woman as well as the tax collector and prostitutes are parading into the kingdom right in front of the nit picking legalists who insist that one must recite the requisite doctrines before entering. That's what's messed up.


The intellect is clearly involved in believing the word we hear. One does not have to be an intellectual, but the mind is involved.

No. The mind is not involved at all. There is only one mediator between God and mankind, Christ Jesus. It is a matter of the heart, not the intellect. One needn't understand the properties of the combustion engine before going for a ride in the car, and one will never get into that car until they have the faith of Christ. Again, "through faith, and that NOT of yourselves". It isn't your faith, but the faith of Christ; Christ's faith implanted in the new creature. The new creation is brought to life in, with, and through Christ's spirit dwelling in them. That is what allows them to hear, receive and believe the gospel. They don't have to understand anything because nothing is more fundamental than Christ. Christ is life itself, and no one can turn away. All knees must bend at the revelation of Christ. It is only the darkened intellect that can walk away in the first place.

They've done studies where they have people stare at a blank screen, and flash images of anything from train wrecks to fields of daisies. The subjects were wired up to monitors measuring brain and vital signs. What they discovered is that the images that registered in their brains came from their heart. In other words, the effect the images had on their heart is what caused the images in their brain to decide whether the images they were looking at had a positive response or a negative one in their mind. They noticed the same thing with the smile. People smile, and it makes them happy. We all think it's the other way around.

When you see a spectacular sunset you don't have to have some comprehensive understanding of it to be overwhelmed by it. The gospel message can't be comprehended. it overwhelms by the radical self sacrifice of Christ's love. It annihilates the ego rendering an intellectual appreciation for self preservation useless.

The intellect can affirm that it is correct to feed the poor, clothe the naked, and shelter the homeless, but it is the heart that is broken open and overwhelmed by the love of Christ that actually does it without a thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

A_Man

Active Member
Nov 8, 2019
125
39
28
51
Atlanta area
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You can interpret it however you please. The point is that Judah Sicrio literally means "Jewish hit man", and Judas Iscariot sounds almost exactly the same. It's a blatant word play.

If it is calling him a member of the Dagger sect, how is that a word play?

We're all familiar with the etymology. You don't have to keep reminding us. The word play would have been intentional. The chances are quite high that Judas Iscariot didn't even exist. He's simply a literary device.

You have a different view of the scripture than I do (and most Christians who have lived throughout history.) Do you think Jesus was a literary device also?

I have heard of a group that teaches that people get saved first, then believe. That's pretty messed up and outright unbiblical.
It's sound doctrine and right out of the bible.

Why don't you show one verse about God saving men's souls before they believed instead of saving them through faith? I quoted I Corinthians 15:1-13 and Romans 10:9-10. Paul says this in Acts 16 "“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved...." Where does He say, "God will save you before you believe" or "God will save you whether you believe or not?" I cannot find this in the Bible.

You don't choose Christ, he chooses you. "Flesh has not revealed this, but my father in heaven". "no man can please God" "No man is righteous". "No man comes to me unless the father draw him". Repentance is a gift, and only those who receive that gift can repent. Belief is a consequence of salvation.

Paul says we are saved through faith, not that the faith comes later. The verses you referred to do not support that idea that salvation comes first.

Look at the parables in Luke's gospel just prior to where Jesus points out that only those who sell all their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor can be his followers. They all point out the fact that unless the kingdom is revealed first, no one can believe. You can't truly believe in what you have never known or seen. You can't believe until you hear the gospel message. Again, Jesus isn't suggesting that giving away all of one's worldly possessions is a means to following Christ, but that it is a consequence of God's revelation of the kingdom. It is inevitable.

This is a different topic.

Fallen humanity is incapable of believing in the gospel in the first place. They must be made whole in order to respond to it. God has to give Lazarus the ears to hear Christ's command to rise and walk out of his tomb. Dead bodies can't do anything, and that is the state of fallen humanity.

Paul says faith is a gift of God, but he says that we are saved through faith, not before we believe.

You're still putting the cart before the horse. Revelation is what happens first. No one has the ability to know that they're spiritually dead until God reveals that to them. God gives fallen humanity a new heart which is what enables us to respond to the gospel message. Unless a man has the ears to hear, and respond to the gospel, they're dead in their sins.

What cart before the horse? the issue I addressed was not the Father drawing people, but the idea that people are saved before they believe.

You're making essentially the same claim Jehovah's Witnesses make in that it matters how accurate one's knowledge is. They insist that Jesus was affixed to a stake rather than a cross. These particulars are of no consequence to those who are alive in Christ. You're trying to build a clock when all we need to know is what time it is.

I do not know the details of what the JWs teach, but I would not think believing Christ died on a different shaped instrument is the issue. I suspect an X shape similar the historical chi-rho is more likely.

The Bible says to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. If understanding in preaching the Gospel were unimportant, then Peter could have just preached in tongues in a language the crowd did not understand instead of preaching a comprehensible sermon. Hearing the Gospel and believing it typically works through hearing with the ears physically. God's grace works on the mind as well.

Again, look who the gospel writers choose as examples of those who are saved: The pagan Centurion has more faith than everyone in Israel. The heretical Samaritan, and the Syro-phoenician woman as well as the tax collector and prostitutes are parading into the kingdom right in front of the nit picking legalists who insist that one must recite the requisite doctrines before entering. That's what's messed up.

These people knew, intellectually, that Jesus existed. There intellect was involved in that. There was a Samaritan in a parable and a leper. I am not sure who you are referring to. I do not know if the Syrophoenician woman received eternal salvation or not.

No. The mind is not involved at all. There is only one mediator between God and mankind, Christ Jesus. It is a matter of the heart, not the intellect.

What you are saying does not make sense. Since the premise of your argument is against the engaging of the intellect, maybe that is the idea.

The Ethiopian, in some manuscripts, confesses, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." He had that idea in his ___mind___ and believed it. Paul write about the Gentiles who walked in the vanity of their mind having their understanding darkened, but he wrote that the Ephesian saints were to be "renewed in the spirit of your mind." He wrote let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.... We are to love God with our mind. The mind is not outside of the working of God or the salvation process.

. One needn't understand the properties of the combustion engine before going for a ride in the car, and one will never get into that car until they have the faith of Christ. Again, "through faith, and that NOT of yourselves". It isn't your faith, but the faith of Christ; Christ's faith implanted in the new creature.

You opposed that idea earlier, arguing that salvation comes before faith. Does salvation come through faith or before it?

And we aren't talking about learning how the combustion engine works, studying years of theology, or even memorizing the Bible. The Gospel by which Paul says we are saved is simple.

he new creation is brought to life in, with, and through Christ's spirit dwelling in them. That is what allows them to hear, receive and believe the gospel. They don't have to understand anything because nothing is more fundamental than Christ. Christ is life itself, and no one can turn away. All knees must bend at the revelation of Christ. It is only the darkened intellect that can walk away in the first place.

If they do not understand with the mind they don't have revelation. Without revelation our minds cannot understand Christ, but the mind is involved.

The intellect can affirm that it is correct to feed the poor, clothe the naked, and shelter the homeless, but it is the heart that is broken open and overwhelmed by the love of Christ that actually does it without a thought.

The person who does that just might have let 'this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.' None of this is evidence that the mind is uninvolved in faith or even walking out the Christian life in faith.

I do not think you really believe what you are saying, but rather are just redefining words in confusing ways, kind of like with the word 'religion' in the OP. It helps to stick with the way terms are used Biblically, too.
 
Last edited: