Note: The following discussion has been carried over from another blog and since my blog has become the new hotspot for debates between Roman Catholics and Protestants, it has been continued here.

Before beginning, I will admit that my views concerning this subject are biased because as a child I prayed the sinner’s prayer, while failing to make a true commitment. That paired with an unbiblical understanding of the perseverance of the saints led me to place my confidence, of the security of my salvation, in my praying a prayer rather than in my bearing of fruit in keeping with repentance (Matthew 3:8).

Do I think there is a better evangelism paradigm than the sinner’s prayer? Yes, when coupled with an inadequate presentation of the Gospel the sinners prayer is dangerous for several reasons.

1. I think it is rooted in our desire for closure rather than Scripture and our desire to see Biblical converts.

2. I think it flows out of an unbiblical understanding of the great commission; we are called to disciple not merely evangelize.

3. I think it leads believers to place their assurance of Salvation in an act rather than in God.

4. I think it oversimplifies the Gospel.

5. I think it does not maintain an equal understanding of Christ as both Savior and Lord.

Do I think that praying the sinner’s prayer is unbiblical, heretical, or just plain bad? No, I just think there are better methods of concluding a Gospel presentation and I am positive that someone with more experience and wisdom could point me to a better method than anything I could suggest as well. I do not think this is a question of what is Biblical or unbiblical but about what methods convey the Gospel with more clarity.

Disclaimer: This all depends on what sinner’s prayer you pray and how you present the Gospel. When coupled with a Biblical Gospel presentation praying a prayer, as an outward sign of an inward commitment, is a very Biblical thing. What should be avoided is presenting the Gospel as “pray this prayer and you are always saved,” that is unbiblical. A proper presentation of the Gospel should always result in a proper understanding of prayer, in this case a prayer of commitment and submission to Christ. Honestly, would not want to pray to the God who purchased them with the blood of His only begotten Son? I think communication with the Father is a natural result of receiving the Gospel message and we should stress the importance of communicating with the Father. What we should avoid is stressing the mechanistic repetition of a prayer that does not flow forth from the heart; it is my conviction that our desire for closure causes us to do that very thing. This is why I would suggest praying a simple prayer for the individual, encouraging them pray there on there own, or encouraging them to go home a talk to God about their new life in Him.

Finally, just share the Gospel; immerse yourself in God’s Word so you know the Gospel and share it like crazy. It is my prayer that we would combine a mature knowledge of God with an ever-increasing passion for God and go tell the world. For some reason it seems that the more you know about God the more boring you become and I think we need to change that. The Puritans call this “logic on fire” the more you know of God the more your passions burn for Him.

One of the great challenges of apologetics in our times is destroying the arguments and lofty opinions raised against the knowledge of God (II Corinthians 10:5). This is not due to the soundness of secular arguments but rather their plurality. There has always been a plurality of arguments and lofty opinions raised against the knowledge of God; however, modern times are set apart because of the plurality of conflicting arguments that one individual can hold. To compound this situation these conflicting arguments can be coherently held within the framework of the cognitive divide. (See my previous post “The Answer to the Monoculture: II Corinthians 10:4-5 and Acts 17” for more on this divide) If a worldview were defined as “the glasses through which one sees and interprets the world;” then most Americans are wearing bifocals or trifocals, which they use to pragmatically interpret the world.

Apologetics must be an appeal to both the the heart/conscience(1) and the mind. It must appeal to the heart lest they become like the church in Ephesus and loose their passion for God even though they posess a knowledge of Him (Revelation 2:4). It must appeal to the mind lest they become like the Jews who were passionate about God though their passion was not based on a knowledge of God (Romans 10:1-3).

Most of what we call apologetics focuses on the destruction of singular worldviews; rationalism, phlosophical naturalism, Hinduism, consumerism, romanticism, modernism, postmodernism, hypermodernism, etc. Such methods are no longer effective within the cognitive divide framework where one individual can hold multiple worldviews simultaneously. There are not pure postmoderns. One of the oft used examples of this is that no one wants a postmodern banker; since truth is relative your $500 paycheck may only be a $5.00 paycheck to a postmodern banker. No banker ever does that; because they have accepted modernism as their worldview at work. At the same time this same banker may accept a postmodern view of religious truth. This creates quite a challenge for the apologist (which we all are; I Peter 3:15).

To begin to understand how apologetics works in this new environment we must first understand the cognitive divide. I am not sure if there is a specific name for this phenomenon I like the terms: Adaptationalism, Divisionalism, or maybe just Pragmatism. Whatever you call it the basic premise, in its simplest form, is that the mind is divided into two different sectors one sector is dedicated to the worldviews, which govern the objective world, and the other is dedicated to the worldviews, which govern the subjective world. Science and rationality are placed under the umbrella of objective truth while religion and morality are considered subjective. An example of this would be an individual whose predominant worldview concerning the subjective world would be Postmodernism while their predominant worldview concerning the objective world would be modernism. There are other possible combinations: romanticism and rationalism or hypermodernism and naturalism for example.

Once again, the challenge of modern apologists it to destroy whatever worldviews an individual may have and then unify their mind under the total all-encompassing truth of Scripture. Apologetics like this must occur within a relationship with the individual or with the culture, that individual is from (see Acts 17 for how Paul does this). This requires you to listen first and destroy later because we must know what an individual believes before we can effectively combat it.

(1) I have combined the heart and the conscience or several reasons. Namely, because I find the passages concerning the hardening of one’s heart to be similar to the passages concerning the searing of one’s conscience. I think they are separate entities but they share a similar function. Please let me know your thoughts on this.

If you have not gone to the website for Ignite, please go and have a look. Find out when and where we meet to pray, find out how you can help us set fire to this campus, and find out how God is already beginning to dramatically move on the University of Kentucky’s campus.

My physics teacher in high school, Harry Taylor, would always sign our yearbooks with the following words of wisdom, “May your PE= your KE.” Potential energy is just that, your potential. Kinetic energy is the measure of the energy that you are currently using through motion. The “Parable of the Talents” (Matthew 25:14-30) speaks of this very thing.

Commenting on this parable Erwin Raphael McManus says the following:

Yet this parable gives us an inside view of legalism at its best. This man was paralyzed by an improper view of God. There is a difference between the fear of God and being afraid of God. We have seen that the fear of God sets us free to live. Being afraid of God paralyses us and reduced us to existing. His wrong view of God’s character led him to a wrong conclusion of what God would require of him. At the same time, his wrong view of God led him to lose both the potential of his life and the pleasure of his master.

This parable establishes God’s measure for our lives. God sees not only who we are, but who we can become. When we neglect our God-given capacity, when we refuse to maximize our God-given potential, it is wickedness in the sight of God. How would it change the work of the church if our measure of effectiveness was not how little sin was being done, but how much good was being accomplished? We have seen with clarity that a life lived against God is wicked, but have we ever seen as clearly that to live a life beneath our divine capacity is equally dishonoring to God? To not have that opportunity is tragic. To relinquish it, to neglect it, to reject it is wicked in the sight of God.

As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. II Timothy 4:5

The following is an excerpt from Albert Mohler’s Commentary entitled “Can Believers Be Bible Scholars? A Strange Debate in the Academy.”

Michael V. Fox doesn’t believe that faith-based scholarship of the Bible is possible–and he wants to see such scholars marginalized in the larger world of scholarship. In an essay posted at the Web site for the Society of Biblical Literature [SBL], Fox argues, “In my view, faith-based study has no place in academic scholarship, whether the object of study is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or Homer. Faith-based study is a different realm of intellectual activity that can dip into Bible scholarship for its own purposes, but cannot contribute to it.”

This all flows forth from the secular/sacred split that is dividing the modern mind. The secular/sacred split divides the mind into two areas first, the subjective realm of religion and morality and the objective realm of science and reason. In the realm of scholarship, as discussed above, all faith-based scholarship is placed in the subjective realm of religion and morality while non-faith-based scholarship is placed in the objective realm of science and reason. The ever-widening chasm between these two realms is discrediting all faith-based study as subjective and thus inconsequential. We must regain a view that Scripture is objectively true and that it is total truth for the totality of life. We must have undivided minds and live undivided lives unified under the objective reality of the Biblical metanarrative.