Decision Theology

[Lanman87]

My American Evangelical Tradition is full of what I will call decision theology. By that I mean, we present the gospel by preaching/testimony to someone and ask them to believe, repent, call on the name of the Lord, be born again, trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior, ask Jesus into their heart or other "church speak" for becoming a believer. This is done in a group setting via an alter call or in a personal conversation if in a small group or one on one discussion.

Usually it follows this pattern:

1. Explaining that we are all sinners and our sins have separated us from God
2. Telling them how Christ came to take away our sin and restore our relationship with God and give us a new life in Christ
3. Asking them if they will trust in Christ and make Him Lord of their life
4. If they say yes, then lead them in a "sinner's prayer" where they verbalize their desire to "follow Jesus".
5. If they are affiliated with our church we ask them to be baptized.

My question is: What is wrong with this? Doesn't it follow the New Testament pattern of preaching and teaching and a call to belief/repentance? Shouldn't we as Christians constantly be giving people the opportunity to respond to the Gospel because we never know who the Holy Spirit is convicting of sin and drawing to Christ?

Don't we all ultimately have to make a decision on if we are going to follow Christ or not?

What role does a personal decision play in your theological understanding of conversion and repentance?

 

[Lamb]

My American Evangelical Tradition is full of what I will call decision theology. By that I mean, we present the gospel by preaching/testimony to someone and ask them to believe, repent, call on the name of the Lord, be born again, trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior, ask Jesus into their heart or other "church speak" for becoming a believer. This is done in a group setting via an alter call or in a personal conversation if in a small group or one on one discussion.

Usually it follows this pattern:

1. Explaining that we are all sinners and our sins have separated us from God
2. Telling them how Christ came to take away our sin and restore our relationship with God and give us a new life in Christ
3. Asking them if they will trust in Christ and make Him Lord of their life
4. If they say yes, then lead them in a "sinner's prayer" where they verbalize their desire to "follow Jesus".
5. If they are affiliated with our church we ask them to be baptized.

My question is: What is wrong with this? Doesn't it follow the New Testament pattern of preaching and teaching and a call to belief/repentance? Shouldn't we as Christians constantly be giving people the opportunity to respond to the Gospel because we never know who the Holy Spirit is convicting of sin and drawing to Christ?

Don't we all ultimately have to make a decision on if we are going to follow Christ or not?

What role does a personal decision play in your theological understanding of conversion and repentance?

If someone felt led to say a prayer to God...then that person is already a believer and no sinner's prayer or decision is necessary in order to have salvation. That's the problem with decision theology. It tries to place salvation into the hands of man instead of realizing that it's completely God's doing.

 

[Josiah]

My question is: What is wrong with this?

Don't we all ultimately have to make a decision on if we are going to follow Christ or not?

What role does a personal decision play in your theological understanding of conversion and repentance?

@Lanman87

IMO, it all comes down to what you mean by "DECISION." Yes, there must be faith... personal faith on the part of the person. The typical understanding of Justification (narrow) in Protestantism is: Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide, as ONE united inseparable truth. Remove any aspect of that, and it's not true. But as one truth, there thus IS justification in a specific personal way. IMO, Protestants are often quite in agreement there (de facto, so are a lot of Catholics). I think many view this as Sola Gratia - the reason, the cause... Solus Christus - the means, the gift.... Sola Fide - the means whereby the gift is applied to an individual. For God so loved the world that He gave His Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but has everlasting life.


But here's where I see the difference: Is that faith something WE create, something we invent, something the unregenerate gives to SELF? It's that old synergism vs. monergism debate.... or to put it another way, is Jesus THE Savior or does Jesus simply make salvation POSSIBLE, does God simply OFFER salvation or GIVE salvation? Is Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide what God does OR is it a cooperative, joint accomplishment between the unsaved, unregerate, dead person AND the Holy Spirit, each doing their part? IF we understand "decision" as "faith is present" then I think there's nothing wrong, but often "decision theology" seems to be a way to make justification synergistic, to make Jesus the one who makes salvation POSSIBLE but doesn't actually save anyone.

In the ancient Creed, we confess: "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and GIVER of life." The "life" meant in that Third Article is spiritual life and faith. The whole point there is that God GIVES this, it's God who SAVES... He doesn't just make it possible for us to save ourselves.



This is explored more here: CAN the Dead Unbeliever "Decide" to Believe?

Then you might consider this: Message of the Reformation Still Needed Today!



Blessings!


Josiah



.

 

[Albion]

My American Evangelical Tradition is full of what I will call decision theology. By that I mean, we present the gospel by preaching/testimony to someone and ask them to believe, repent, call on the name of the Lord, be born again, trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior, ask Jesus into their heart or other "church speak" for becoming a believer. This is done in a group setting via an alter call or in a personal conversation if in a small group or one on one discussion.

Usually it follows this pattern:

1. Explaining that we are all sinners and our sins have separated us from God
2. Telling them how Christ came to take away our sin and restore our relationship with God and give us a new life in Christ
3. Asking them if they will trust in Christ and make Him Lord of their life
4. If they say yes, then lead them in a "sinner's prayer" where they verbalize their desire to "follow Jesus".
5. If they are affiliated with our church we ask them to be baptized.

My question is: What is wrong with this? Doesn't it follow the New Testament pattern of preaching and teaching and a call to belief/repentance? Shouldn't we as Christians constantly be giving people the opportunity to respond to the Gospel because we never know who the Holy Spirit is convicting of sin and drawing to Christ?

You asked, and I'm willing to attempt an answer. There wouldn't be anything wrong with the general idea, and that's what you asked about. However, it's the execution that is the usual point of disagreement. When "evangelicals" engage in altar calls and the whole range of actions that go along with that approach, the criticism is that it's likely to be a "conversion" that's either skin deep or temporary.

What those critics, members of other Christian denominations, would say is that everyone must make decision for the Lord, but that has to be well-thought out, unequivocal, and coming after a serious introduction to the faith, etc. You know what I am talking about.

If the "altar call" kind of commitment were a commitment to begin the process, that would be one thing, but normally it's considered to be essentially the complete experience, all done in a few minutes' time.

Don't we all ultimately have to make a decision on if we are going to follow Christ or not?

Yes.

 

[Lanman87]

But here's where I see the difference: Is that faith something WE create, something we invent, something the unregenerate gives to SELF?

Even in decision theology it is recognized that the decision comes by an act of the Holy Spirit that brings a person to belief. Nobody just chooses Christ without God moving on them first through the power of the Holy Spirit. I was taught all my life that we preach the gospel and show people their need for forgiveness but we do not convert anyone. Only Christ converts and brings someone to belief.

We preach the words and God "cuts to the heart" Acts 2:37. In other words, the reaction and evidence of "being cut to the heart" is a decision to follow Christ which is accompanied by repentance and baptism.

From the "Baptist Faith and Message"

A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.

 

[Josiah]

Even in decision theology it is recognized that the decision comes by an act of the Holy Spirit that brings a person to belief. Nobody just chooses Christ without God moving on them first through the power of the Holy Spirit. I was taught all my life that we preach the gospel and show people their need for forgiveness but we do not convert anyone. Only Christ converts and brings someone to belief.

... and when it's presented THAT way, we're on the same "page."


MY experience, however, with "decision theology" folks is this: Jesus opened the gates to heaven.... the Holy Spirit offers this gift freely to all.... some accept it and some don't: Some go to heaven 'cuz they accepted it, some go to hell because they rejected it."

However, I've certainly heard your "spin" on this. I was homeschooled (sort of) through the 8th grade, but this was done in cooperation with a large, Mega, Baptist church (Reformed Baptist). It had a school (preschool - high school) BUT also it supported home school students. My curriculum was through that school, it did the testing and grading, etc. I had to meet each Wednesday on campus with a "coordinator" (just me, no parent) and with my group of peers. We also did all our graduation and awards stuff IN CHURCH, during Sunday worship, so this Catholic boy attended a number of Baptist worship services. I VERY much remember the preacher addressing this very point.... he said something like: "If your heart is beating hard... if your palms are sweating.... if every cell in your body is shouting "Go down and dedicate yourself to Christ!" then that PROVES you have faith, you ARE a Christian." As a Lutheran, I could live with that.... the work of the Holy Spirit often DOES show itself - sometimes dramatically. We Lutherans are more apt to do that in CONFIRMATION - a long, deliberate, thoughtful process rather than an emotional thing at the end of a rousing worship service, but hey - no big theological difference. Either say, it's GOD. Not me. Not at all. Not a bit. Monergism.

From the "Baptist Faith and Message"

A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.

Ah... that makes me just a bit uncomfortable.... OUR RESPONSE? Hum.... Now, the last sentence seems to "fix" that a bit, as long as "grace" means 100% GOD'S doing, GOD'S action...and not the synergistic "God's help."



Blessings!


Josiah



.

 

[Lanman87]

Ah... that makes me just a bit uncomfortable.... OUR RESPONSE? Hum.... Now, the last sentence seems to "fix" that a bit, as long as "grace" means 100% GOD'S doing, GOD'S action...and not the synergistic "God's help."

If we have had a "change in heart wrought by the Holy Spirit" shouldn't there be a response from us of repentance and faith? Isn't "repentance and faith" the necessary reaction to being regenerated?

 

[Josiah]

If we have had a "change in heart wrought by the Holy Spirit" shouldn't there be a response from us of repentance and faith? Isn't "repentance and faith" the necessary reaction to being regenerated?

Again, if it's presented as evidence of regeneration - faith - spiritual life, then yes.

As I've noted in my posts above, it all comes down to whether that "decision" is EVIDENCE of faith or the ACCEPTANCE of faith, whether the "... sola fide" part of justification is something God DOES (not just offer) or something WE do.

We've had ENDLESS debates here at CH over the years over whether repentance PRECEDES faith/life or is evidence of it. We've had ENDLESS debates (gone nowhere) as to whether God gives faith or we choose faith. Again, I realize there are "Evangelicals" that comes out of a REFORMED/CALVINIST background and thus are monergists (I've read Billy Graham was one of these), but in MY experience, the vast majority of "Evangelicals" are radically synergistic Arminianists and yes they tend to be the ones constantly talking about "decisions" and "but you gottas"


Blessings


Josiah


.

 

[Lanman87]

What those critics, members of other Christian denominations, would say is that everyone must make decision for the Lord, but that has to be well-thought out, unequivocal, and coming after a serious introduction to the faith, etc. You know what I am talking about.

What makes a serious thought out conversion more reliable than an "emotional, crying because I'm forgiven, jumping for joy" experience?

It seems to me Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox are having just as hard of a time with people leaving the church as American Evangelicals. I would say authenticity of faith is more important than how someone came to faith.

Obviously, as someone from a Decision/Alter Call background moving to a more reformed mindset I'm struggling with these type of issues. My current church doesn't have an alter call and barely ever ask people to "believe and repent". Shouldn't there be a balance?

 

[Lanman87]

Again, if it's presented as evidence of regeneration - faith - spiritual life, then yes.

So are Lutherans 100% in on the Calvinist view of Predestination and Election?

It seems to me if Monergism is 100% true then God chooses 100% of the people who will be regenerated.

 

[Josiah]

I would say authenticity of faith is more important than how someone came to faith.

Hummmmm......

In my view, the issue of HOW salvation comes about IS important - more important than anything else.

IF it's a case that God did His part (very well).. the part that makes salvation POSSIBLE... the part that actually doesn't save anyone.... but that the Great and Awesome ME did my part (very well)... the part that actually results in my salvation... the part that actually gets me to heaven... then, well, the entire Gospel is (at least) undermined. We simply are putting a slight spin on the False Relgion of the world: We fix ourselves (with the help of God), we save ourselves, no Savior is needed - just the OPPORTUNITY for each to save themselves. AND it destroys the whole concept of sin and we're deep into the heresy that the Fall didn't kill, it was just a minor cold that we can get past. AND it creates what Luther called "a terror of the conscience" since I can never KNOW if I did it right, if I did my part fully and as necessary.



This is explored more here: CAN the Dead Unbeliever "Decide" to Believe?

Then you might consider this: Message of the Reformation Still Needed Today!



.

 

[Josiah]

It seems to me if Monergism is 100% true then God chooses 100% of the people who will be regenerated.

Monergism: Jesus is the Savior. If you are saved, it's not because you saved yourself but because Jesus saved you.


See...

Election/Predestination

This very controversial issue from a Lutheran perspective... Some Scriptures: Ephesians 1:3-7 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the...

www.christianityhaven.com

.

 

[Lanman87]

IF it's a case that God did His part (very well).. the part that makes salvation POSSIBLE... the part that actually doesn't save anyone.... but that the Great and Awesome ME did my part (very well)... the part that actually results in my salvation... the part that actually gets me to heaven...

If you have a genuine faith in the true Christ aren't you saved by that faith? And not what you believe about previenent grace, irresistible grace, infant baptism, sacraments, preservation of the saints, monergism/synergism and all the other things we like to have "passionate discussions" about?

It seems to me that God works the way He works. We don't have to understand it all and can be wrong about how He works, and yet still have been born again/regenerated and have a saving faith. Just because we may think we are somehow "saving ourselves" doesn't mean we are.

 

[Josiah]

If you have a genuine faith in the true Christ aren't you saved by that faith? And not what you believe about previenent grace, irresistible grace, infant baptism, sacraments, preservation of the saints, monergism/synergism and all the other things we like to have "passionate discussions" about?

If you have faith in Christ, then yes - you are saved (justification, in the narrow sense). Again, Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. The issue we're discussing is whether that faith is a result of the dead, unregenerate, unbelieving sinner CHOOSING/DECIDING to have faith (synergism) or is the result of the gift from God?



IMO, he who claims that Jesus only did His part (the part that actually saves no one) - perhaps opening to door to heaven or whatever - and the Holy Spirit simply OFFERS this to everyone - BUT I (this wonderful, awesome, amazing person that I am) finished what Jesus left undone, doing Him a great favor by ACCEPTING the offer... well, IMO, that actually destroys the Christian Gospel. It means Jesus isn't the Savior (if He saves no one, how can He be the Savior?), it merely means God PROVIDES a way for each person to save themselves. Or as it's sometimes put, "God helps those who help themselves" or "Jesus opened the door to heaven but you gotta walk through it."

Years ago, I had an internet "friend" from India, a very high ranking Braham Hindu. He told me that there is a small sect within Hinduism that Christian missionaries often point to. They teach that sin is like a fire that destroys and kills, and it has engulfed the world. We CANNOT put out the fire BUT we can escape it. But this sect has two different "camps." One is called "The Way of the Monkey" and the other "The Way of the Cat." The first holds that God asks like a mother monkey, who comes running into the burning hut, calls on her baby to cling to her back, and the mother runs out of the building - the baby safe on her back, and the mother applauds her for holding on. The other teaches no, it's like a mother cat running into the burning hut... she finds her kitten, grabs it with her teeth and runs out of the building, the kitten in her mouth. And the kitten praises her mother. Both teach that God saves.... but it seems very different to me. The Way of the Monkey is similar to Islam and Hinduism and is synergistic. The Way of the Cat suggests a SAVIOR and is monergistic.


This is the 5th Sola of the Reformation: Soli Deo Gloria. To God ALONE be the glory! God ALONE does the saving.



Friend, sorry, but I honestly can't present this better than has already been done here:

This is explored more here: CAN the Dead Unbeliever "Decide" to Believe?

Then you might consider this: Message of the Reformation Still Needed Today!

I'm honestly not sure if we are disagreeing or agreeing... but check out the two links above.




.

 

[Lanman87]

I'm honestly not sure if we are disagreeing or agreeing... but check out the two links above.

I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing. I'm asking questions to get another perspective.

I guess what I'm getting at is that someone can believe synergism and still, by God's grace, have a saving and transformative faith. They may think that they are responsible for the "decision" to "accept Jesus into their heart" when in fact, it is God who caused them to make that decision in the first place.

And I'm pondering how our role in preaching/testimony/teaching/evangelism plays into someone coming to faith. Is it wrong to ask someone to believe? Is it wrong to tells someone that we are all sinners and in need of the savior and that if they place their faith in Christ they will be saved? It sounds very much like that is trying to convince someone to make a decision....

 

[Josiah]

I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing. I'm asking questions to get another perspective.

I guess what I'm getting at is that someone can believe synergism and still, by God's grace, have a saving and transformative faith. They may think that they are responsible for the "decision" to "accept Jesus into their heart" when in fact, it is God who caused them to make that decision in the first place.

Okay... no argument.

But I DO believe that person NEEDS to be corrected because their faith is in serious jeoprody since it is placed in self, what self did. IMO, Luther was right: The Devil and our "old adam" are going to work on that, causing us to make too much of self and too little of Christ, make us wonder if I'm REALLY believing, if I REALLY decided for Christ. As long as we are looking in the mirror in stead of looking to the Cross, our salvation is in danger. Thus the Reformation principle: Soli Deo Gloria.

Looking to post 14, IMO there's a sharp (and dangerous) contrast in the Way of the Monkey and the Way of the Cat.. and it has a lot of do with the view of self, who gets the credit, where the certainty lies... who is the Savior.


Blessings, my friend.


- Josiah


.

 

[Lees]

My American Evangelical Tradition is full of what I will call decision theology. By that I mean, we present the gospel by preaching/testimony to someone and ask them to believe, repent, call on the name of the Lord, be born again, trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior, ask Jesus into their heart or other "church speak" for becoming a believer. This is done in a group setting via an alter call or in a personal conversation if in a small group or one on one discussion.

Usually it follows this pattern:

1. Explaining that we are all sinners and our sins have separated us from God
2. Telling them how Christ came to take away our sin and restore our relationship with God and give us a new life in Christ
3. Asking them if they will trust in Christ and make Him Lord of their life
4. If they say yes, then lead them in a "sinner's prayer" where they verbalize their desire to "follow Jesus".
5. If they are affiliated with our church we ask them to be baptized.

My question is: What is wrong with this? Doesn't it follow the New Testament pattern of preaching and teaching and a call to belief/repentance? Shouldn't we as Christians constantly be giving people the opportunity to respond to the Gospel because we never know who the Holy Spirit is convicting of sin and drawing to Christ?

Don't we all ultimately have to make a decision on if we are going to follow Christ or not?

What role does a personal decision play in your theological understanding of conversion and repentance?

There is nothing wrong with that.

Remember....your presentation of the gospel does not determine. You may do it badly. You may do it perfectly. Doesn't matter. The power of God is not in your presentation. It is in the gospel itself. You just get it out there.

(Rom. 1:16) "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth...."

You won't present the gospel as a new believer as you do when you are a mature believer. Doesn't matter. God is pleased with both. The power is not in your presentation. It is what God does with it.

Lees

 

[Lees]

@Lanman87

True story...for what it's worth.

I was a new believer. Got into the trades employment. I was a learner or apprentice in the trade. The lead man was the experienced man and I was learning from him. He was not a Christian. But, he knew his trade.

He is driving the truck one morning to a job and I am with him.

On the way, we got into a discussion that somehow led me to say, well, I am a Christian. I believe what the Bible says and i have accepted Christ as my Lord and Saviour.

And I asked him, what do you think about that? He said, not much. I said, ok.

I had nothing more to offer. I didn't know anything more. Was God disappointed? Of course not. God knows what you know and what you don't.

You just tell them what you know. And God is pleased.

Lees

 

[Albion]

What makes a serious thought out conversion more reliable than an "emotional, crying because I'm forgiven, jumping for joy" experience?

Obviously, a moment's brainstorm is not necessarily a genuine "conversion experience" to say nothing of the fact that accepting Christ as one's Lord and Savior should mean knowing what Lord and Savior really mean and imply, not just following the instructions given by some minister to everyone in the audience at once and then to repeat a few words from him.

In my life, and perhaps in yours as well, there have been times when, thinking over some troublesome issue, it's suddenly seemed crystal clear to me what to think about it, that X was the answer...only to realize a little while later that that was premature and the "answer" didn't hold up after all.

It seems to me Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox are having just as hard of a time with people leaving the church as American Evangelicals.

Surely, but it would be a big mistake to attribute this widespread trend to such churches as you mentioned not relying upon "altar calls" to build membership.

I would say authenticity of faith is more important than how someone came to faith.

I think we agree there. But the scenario I referred to is a better way to reach that goal than the alternative you referred to.

Obviously, as someone from a Decision/Alter Call background moving to a more reformed mindset I'm struggling with these type of issues. My current church doesn't have an alter call and barely ever ask people to "believe and repent". Shouldn't there be a balance?

As I was saying before, a careful and thorough approach to the matter that we're discussing isn't really balanced by a quickie appeal to emotions and a frequently unfamiliar minister's urging to everybody in the house at once to "come here and make a decision NOW!"

The two approaches are not equals, IOW.

 

[Lamb]

If you have a genuine faith in the true Christ aren't you saved by that faith? And not what you believe about previenent grace, irresistible grace, infant baptism, sacraments, preservation of the saints, monergism/synergism and all the other things we like to have "passionate discussions" about?

It seems to me that God works the way He works. We don't have to understand it all and can be wrong about how He works, and yet still have been born again/regenerated and have a saving faith. Just because we may think we are somehow "saving ourselves" doesn't mean we are.

The problem comes in when people falsely claim that they became a Christian when they made a decision to follow Christ. That's inaccurate and bearing false witness.

Edited to add for those who believe in decision theology...you became a Christian when God gave you faith, not because of the response on your part.