Thread: "Say the magic words" for salvation Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026689
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
I watched the BBC documentary "God's Cadet's" and was struck by comments made by two SA members who had relatives pass away without becoming Christians - both were struggling with the thought of their loved ones in hell.
They both said something to effect of "If only they'd said the 'magic words' about wanting to be saved by Jesus, they'd be in heaven." The woman said that someone told her, perhaps her sister thought the words in her head before she died.
I don't know if this is an SA-specific belief or not. But I am confused by the idea that just saying "Jesus please save me, I believe in you" in the last moments before death is sufficient for salvation. This doesn't seem to line up with a more orthodox view of Christianity that involves baptism, repentance, and loving God and one's neighbor.
There is of course the thief on the Cross, but I've heard many times that as Jesus had not yet died and risen at that point, the promise of Paradise to the unbaptized thief is not something that carried over into the new covenant.
Is this something other Shippers have come across, and if so do you think it is a valid position with any support from tradition or scripture?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
... There is of course the thief on the Cross, but I've heard many times that as Jesus had not yet died and risen at that point, the promise of Paradise to the unbaptized thief is not something that carried over into the new covenant.
Is this something other Shippers have come across, and if so do you think it is a valid position with any support from tradition or scripture?
I have never heard that view expressed in any form.
It sounds a bit like the sour grapes of those who were recruited at daybreak, and have toiled all day in the hot sun vis à vis those recruited an hour before sunset being paid the same as them.
There's all the difference in the world between encouraging someone on the point of death to make their peace with the Lord, and discouraging someone full of life and enjoying it from putting off making a decision because they think they can leave it until they are between the stirrup and the ground.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
Hi Enoch - I'm thinking less of someone who genuinely decides to follow Jesus in their 11th hour, but more the idea that just saying "Jesus is Lord" before one's last breath is a ticket to heaven. That's the sentiment that the SA officers were expressing.
As for the thief on the cross, here is an article expressing the view I described:
Apologetics Press
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Well, metaphorically in the parable of the day-laborers those who were hired at the end of the day got the same monetary reward as those hired in the morning. And in the parable of the prodigal son, yeah, the guy was penitent, but also in need of regular meals. Basically, people often call on the Lord in desperation (and one can be pretty desperate at death's door) and I believe he answers with love. However I don't believe "magic words" are particularly necessary. Only God knows what is in the heart and what he values there.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
It is safe to say there is no consensus aboard about the membership rules for the club or indeed whether a membership is needed at all. From everyone gets in no matter what to only a few of those who follow all the rules and mean it.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
They both said something to effect of "If only they'd said the 'magic words' about wanting to be saved by Jesus, they'd be in heaven." The woman said that someone told her, perhaps her sister thought the words in her head before she died.
I don't know if this is an SA-specific belief or not. But I am confused by the idea that just saying "Jesus please save me, I believe in you" in the last moments before death is sufficient for salvation. This doesn't seem to line up with a more orthodox view of Christianity that involves baptism, repentance, and loving God and one's neighbor.
The idea of a specific prayer that works as a magic "Get Out Of Hell Free" card is something often discussed by blogger Fred Clark of Slacktivist. It features prominently in his years-long (and still ongoing) analysis of the Left Behind books. A representative sample:
quote:
Salvation is never a matter of "we love because he first loved us," but is primarily seen as an escape clause from hell for those who accept or believe or do whatever it is that they do when they say the magic words. That magical utterance — not God's love or mercy — affords the only limit to, the only shelter from, God's all-consuming wrath.
So yes, such views do exist and are common enough for a relatively sane blogger to launch a multi-decade diatribe (in part) against such a notion.
Posted by hugorune (# 17793) on
:
I really do think that when people market Christianity as a means to escape hell and get a "ticket to heaven", they're missing the point of what this is all about.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Hi Enoch - I'm thinking less of someone who genuinely decides to follow Jesus in their 11th hour, but more the idea that just saying "Jesus is Lord" before one's last breath is a ticket to heaven. That's the sentiment that the SA officers were expressing.
I also saw the programme and didn't get the impression that that was what they were staying. I heard it not so much as a reference to a formula, as anxiety that their relatives had professed before they died. Particularly in the case of one of the participants, it was anxiety that her sister, who had had the same Christian upbringing as she had, and had drifted away from faith in teenage years, had never returned and had died young.
quote:
As for the thief on the cross, here is an article expressing the view I described:
Apologetics Press
I don't know anything about Apologetics Press or Dr Miller. However, I have to admit that his exegesis in the linked article has not persuaded me.
The suggestion that this can all be explained if the thief was one of the people who had been baptised by John the Baptist isn't even, as far as I know, found in any pious legend, yet alone scripture. He describes that as his first argument.
His second seems to be in part based on the assumption that as the AV translates 2 Tim 2:15 as “rightly divide the word of truth”, 'divide' must have meant the same in 1611 as it does now. So logic chopping is the best of all possible hermeneutics.
The other thing he seems to be assuming is that a person cannot be saved if they have not been baptised. So we have to find some other explanation. That is saying that Jesus constrains his mercy according to the rules of of Dr Miller's denomination.
Again, there's all the difference in the world between a person who cries to the Lord in circumstances when they cannot practically be baptised and a person who has never been baptised who has had plenty of opportunity but thinks they don't need to be.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Basically, people often call on the Lord in desperation (and one can be pretty desperate at death's door) and I believe he answers with love. However I don't believe "magic words" are particularly necessary. Only God knows what is in the heart and what he values there.
I sort of agree with this, which is why the idea of "magic words" rubbed me the wrong way. It seems to reduce God to a cosmic genie, if you say the password then you get into the kingdom.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I also saw the programme and didn't get the impression that that was what they were staying. I heard it not so much as a reference to a formula, as anxiety that their relatives had professed before they died. Particularly in the case of one of the participants, it was anxiety that her sister, who had had the same Christian upbringing as she had, and had drifted away from faith in teenage years, had never returned and had died young.
If what you're saying is the case, then I find it strange that she said "I hope she said the words in her head" as a sort of comfort. Not "Perhaps she did believe towards the end of her life but never expressed it." An emphasis on her saying something specific was what I noted.
The man with the grandmother also said "I never heard her say those words."
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't know anything about Apologetics Press or Dr Miller. However, I have to admit that his exegesis in the linked article has not persuaded me.
I don't agree with that position, but it's one that I've frequently seen given to explain why the thief was saved without baptism but Christians today are meant to get baptized.
I think baptism is a sign of obedience, but those who don't know that or aren't taught that or genuinely believe that they are being faithful without it, are most likely OK with God regardless. That's my personal opinion anyway.
If I had a sick non-Christian relative I would pray that they come to know Christ and have faith before they passed, but whether or not I or anyone else personally heard them say it out loud would be of no import.
[ 13. January 2014, 19:02: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Does one's heaven include the absence of atheist, apostate or otherwise unchristian loved ones? Mine doesn't. Like spouses who accompanied their Jewish partners to the gas camps, I will attend in hell if this is the structure. Or if that is forbidden, then I shall sign a petition, lead a protest and join a revolt against the administration of heaven.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
Enoch reminds us:
quote:
His second seems to be in part based on the assumption that as the AV translates 2 Tim 2:15 as “rightly divide the word of truth”, 'divide' must have meant the same in 1611 as it does now. So logic chopping is the best of all possible hermeneutics.
Collins English Dictionary gives us for 'divide' quote:
2. to share or be shared out in parts; distribute
and the Online Etymological dictionary says quote:
late 14c., from L. dividere "to force apart, cleave, distribute,"
This suggests to me that Timothy is urging his flock to share the words of truth; to evangelise in other words.
This seems to me more likely than to 'understand' 'explain' or 'correctly handle' the word of truth'.
(Maybe when I finish my breakfast I 'll check some more translations)
GG
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
There is of course the thief on the Cross, but I've heard many times that as Jesus had not yet died and risen at that point, the promise of Paradise to the unbaptized thief is not something that carried over into the new covenant.
Dispensationalist Correctness gone mad!
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
quote:
late 14c., from L. dividere "to force apart, cleave, distribute,"
"Cleave" is famously one of the English words whose normal range of usage includes complete opposite meanings. Autoantonyms, you might call them. There are at least half-a-dozen. (And maybe another dozen that can be made to be their own opposites in specialised circumstances)
Which is irrelevant here, other than to point out thqt looking up the dictionary definition of an English word is not always a good way to find out what it means in any context ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Does one's heaven include the absence of atheist, apostate or otherwise unchristian loved ones? Mine doesn't.
A neighbor told me about his worry that his daughter may have turned her back on Christianity, in which case she would go to hell, but - said he - if that happens he will be happy in heaven because people in heaven forget their loved ones in hell ever existed.
All I could think was "can a mother forget the child of her womb?"
But I didn't quote Isaiah to him, I understood he was making peace with the implications of his exclusive concept of who "gets into heaven." To think he might spend forever tortured by concern for a daughter who was locked in hell, would make this life a hell.
"Death where is thy sting" is a cruel question if many/most suffer horribly forever; that would make death a more feared/painful concept for Christians than for non-Christians, death would sting indeed!
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
hugorune
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
There certainly are people who think that saying the magic words/publicly confessing Christ/praying the sinner's prayer leads inexorably to heaven.
My late mother died convinced that we will meet in heaven, albeit I shall be an eight year old in short trousers and with Dumbo ears, because I did the necessary in a CSSM tent on Wimbledon Common in 1956. Mind you, she was pretty good at working out who else would be there "By their deeds shall ye know them" was a regular pronouncement, but then people hadn't heard of cognitive dissonance in those days had they?
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Of course you just need to say the magic words. It's all right here in this Chick Tract.
I am afraid to estimate how many people who profess to be Christian think that believing the right way, or saying the right words, are what is necessary to get into Heaven when they die.
To me it seems that the thought of death is so disturbing and profound that some people are willing to believe in "magic" phrases as long as that assures a way to Heaven.
I don't know the answers. And I doubt magic words mean anything to a God who waits to shed love upon us when we come to God.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I've heard it, mainly among ill-taught evangelicals. It is based on that verse "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved." This leads to huge anxiety among people who think God has a sort of entrance exam or box-checking immigration procedure, and they fear they might not have done everything just right. I once had to inform a sweet young woman that she was in fact already a Christian; although she believed in every article of the creed and loved and trusted Jesus with all of her heart, her church had informed her that it was the public response to an altar call that made one a Christian. She was quite shocked to be informed she already was one. I sent her off to get baptized, and offered to do it myself if she wanted.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
It's a classic form vs substance argument.
It's a little mystifying to me that anyone would think an all-seeing all-knowing God could be fooled by what you may or may not say with your lips and not know what you truly felt.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's a little mystifying to me that anyone would think an all-seeing all-knowing God could be fooled by what you may or may not say with your lips and not know what you truly felt.
A friend puzzled how her father could be saved, considering the things he had done (to her and to others) but he had said the sinners prayer once years before his death so she shrugged and acknowledged that meant he was in heaven even though his behavior wouldn't suggest it.
I suppose the "magic words" theology is a reaction against any hint that you "earn" heaven by how you live, by good deeds. If what you do isn't the route, and you crave certainty, then words must be it? Just a guess.
Probably all of us have theological quirks that overly narrow the concept or character of God.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I've heard it, mainly among ill-taught evangelicals. It is based on that verse "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved." This leads to huge anxiety among people who think God has a sort of entrance exam or box-checking immigration procedure, and they fear they might not have done everything just right.
Well indeed - as a Salvation Army Major - one of many Salvationists who were appalled, horrified, dismayed and very upset at this God's Cadets programme* I have to say that there is no way in which The Salvation Army merely requires the repeition of formula words as a ticket into Heaven.
The Bible verse quoted above says so quite clearly!
If you confess with your mouth ... and believe in your heart
This is the most basic outline of the way of salvation for us:
We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has by his suffering and death made an atonement for the whole world so that whosoever will may be saved.
- it is an act of deliberate choice and considered response to the atonement.
We believe that repentance towards God, faith in our Lord Jesus Chrust and regeneration by the Holy Spirit are necessary to salvation.
- so, no easy and quick repetition of words. Repentance, conscious faith and and seeking and finding of new life in Christ are at the least required.
We believe that we are justified by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and that he that believeth hath the witness in himself.
- salvation is God's work not our words. His grace is received by faith - a matter of the heart. The witness can only be received by the Holy Spirit dwelling within. Not a matter of words at all.
We believe that continuance in a state of salvation depends upon continued obedient faith in Christ.
- no rely on words said when we were 7 or no presumption on words that might yet be spoken. The Christian life is not just one of I was saved on 5th December, but I am being saved today and I will be saved in the future.
So no. We do not belief that 'magic words' repeated once or a million times make someone into a Christian. Sadly there is shallow faith everywhere and unfortunately the people who chose to be interviewed in the film - because many refused to take part - are not representative of the deep spirituality of most Salvationists.
* I was, of course, very moved at the images of practical Christianity expressed by the Major who lived and worked among the prostitutes of London. Had we believed that magic words were all that was required, she'd have been asking every prostitute in London to "read out loud from the little card!" in order to save them all.
[ 14. January 2014, 06:16: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Of course you just need to say the magic words. It's all right here in this Chick Tract.
Yikes! Who are these Chick people?
Obviously a comic strip needs to be simplified, but there was so little about the Gospel. It is basically "Hey Bad Bob, are you afraid of Hell? If so, better say this prayer ASAP." And the verses listed at the end are almost all from Romans 10, one from Acts, and none from the Gospels.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Does one's heaven include the absence of atheist, apostate or otherwise unchristian loved ones?
1 Cor 7:14 seems to me to be saying that the spouse and children of believers are set apart in some way from other unbelievers. I don't know what that means about heaven (to be honest, I think quite rarely about heaven), but I do think that the close loved ones of Christians are covered somehow by that person's faith.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Of course you just need to say the magic words. It's all right here in this Chick Tract.
Yikes! Who are these Chick people?
Obviously a comic strip needs to be simplified, but there was so little about the Gospel. It is basically "Hey Bad Bob, are you afraid of Hell? If so, better say this prayer ASAP." And the verses listed at the end are almost all from Romans 10, one from Acts, and none from the Gospels.
You have never heard of Chick Tracts before? Truly you are blessed among people.
I think your "orthodox" interpretation of Christianity may be too large - you say it involves "baptism, repentance, and loving God and one's neighbor". I think there is only one of these which is necessary - the others are desirable if possible - repentance. It is possible to have death-bed conversions, to fully and genuinely repent very near the end. I think such people miss out on so much of a good life that God can give them here on earth.
As to eternal destination, I think this is a whole new area. It cannot be guaranteed by a few words, because that makes a mockery of most of the bible. Repentance is shown in more than just words, but at the core, it is about a change of heart.
Posted by andras (# 2065) on
:
A former minister of mine used to warn people against the dangers of turning 'faith' into 'a work'. I think he was right.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Ahh Chick Tracts. The Death Cookie is my favourite.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
As you can imagine, being a scientifically literate RPG player, I have my personal favourites amongst these comics.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I suppose the "magic words" theology is a reaction against any hint that you "earn" heaven by how you live, by good deeds. If what you do isn't the route, and you crave certainty, then words must be it? Just a guess.
The problem, though, that it IS precisely the same kind of proposition: that you earn heaven by something you did. Never mind what you thought or whether you'd repented, do a particular thing and you're in (and don't that one particular thing, and you're out). Just because the thing you have to do is quite trivial, doesn't stop it from being in exactly the same category.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
It's all very well to sneer at the Chick tract. It's crude and a bit simplistic. It also takes the opportunity to take a few side-swipes at some conventional left-wing targets on its way through. Who is this Chick, after all? Is there a real Mr Chick? I've never heard of him. And of course, we are educated, sophisticated people - we're on the Ship.
However, the tract isn't quite saying that all you have to do is recite some words. At the end, Bad Bob has clearly repented. The last frame shows his customers grumbling that he's stopped selling drugs.
There are many things that can bring us to cry out to God. It doesn't somehow invalidate our repentance if the terror of being in a fire or simple fear of eternal torment is one of them. Would you have regarded it as different if in stead, he had gone to Lourdes and lit a candle in the grotto?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's all very well to sneer at the Chick tract. It's crude and a bit simplistic. It also takes the opportunity to take a few side-swipes at some conventional left-wing targets on its way through. Who is this Chick, after all? Is there a real Mr Chick? I've never heard of him. And of course, we are educated, sophisticated people - we're on the Ship.
However, the tract isn't quite saying that all you have to do is recite some words. At the end, Bad Bob has clearly repented. The last frame shows his customers grumbling that he's stopped selling drugs.
There are many things that can bring us to cry out to God. It doesn't somehow invalidate our repentance if the terror of being in a fire or simple fear of eternal torment is one of them. Would you have regarded it as different if in stead, he had gone to Lourdes and lit a candle in the grotto?
Oh yes, Jack Chick is indeed real. Given the fundamentalism of his tracts, and the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Centre classes Chick Publications as a hate group, I think people should do more than sneer at them.
I think it does invalidate our repentance if it is done out of fear - that is not what God wants. It should be done out of love for God and others. Moreover, it invalidates out repentance if WE scare others into repenting by using the folk-devils of eternal fire and torment. It's not what the Gospel is for. Christ came not to condemn the world but to bring eternal life.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
An old truth at work here. When it comes to being saved by grace through faith, formulaic approaches may have their place (though some of the formulae I've seen have struck me as unhelpful). But it is a huge mistake to think the grace of God is limited to the formula which fits our particular theological take. Conviction is the work of the Spirit of God. Trying to bottle that particular Person is like trying to bottle moonbeams. The wind of the Spirit blows where it wills.
I feel a Donavon moment coming on. In seeking to fully understand the work of the Spirit in any human heart, contain that work in a formula, "ah, but I might as well try and catch the wind". Humble co-operation seems the wisest policy for us 'human messengers'. Prepare to be surprised not just by what God does, but how as well. Your stereotypes end up in pieces on the floor, and awe takes over.
[ 14. January 2014, 09:01: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by trouty (# 13497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Ahh Chick Tracts. The Death Cookie is my favourite.
I've never heard of chick but he or she nails it in this one.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Of course there are those who believe that having a few drops of water on your head, attending Mass and saying 5 Hail Marys are also just sufficient to get you through the pearly gates - so don't just jump of some evangelicals...
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Ahh Chick Tracts. The Death Cookie is my favourite.
I've never heard of chick but he or she nails it in this one.
If by 'nail it' you mean 'spreading anti-Catholic lies'. It is nothing but lies.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Of course there are those who believe that having a few drops of water on your head, attending Mass and saying 5 Hail Marys are also just sufficient to get you through the pearly gates - so don't just jump of some evangelicals...
I very much doubt that anyone believes 5 Hail Marys gets them into Heaven when everyone knows a rosary is arranged in groups of ten Hail Marys ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Of course, there are others who are universalists like myself anyway...
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
How about 'maybe?' Mudfrog.
'Not that it fits my understanding of scripture, not that I don't see it as misleading, etc. But just maybe the love of God is wider than the measure of my mind. Or our minds?'
Lovely hymn that comes from.
For the love of God is wider than the measure of our minds
And the heart of the eternal is most wonderfully kind.
I never ever forget that possibility. By all means let's get on with our knitting, of course, even stick our necks out about other folks' wool and needles. But a bit of humility rarely comes amiss, don't you think?
[ 14. January 2014, 09:13: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
As you can imagine, being a scientifically literate RPG player, I have my personal favourites amongst these comics.
I'd imagine you enjoy rock rock rock rock with the ROCK too, aka a lesson to pastors not to stiff bands they hire to play.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
As you can imagine, being a scientifically literate RPG player, I have my personal favourites amongst these comics.
I'd imagine you enjoy rock rock rock rock with the ROCK too, aka a lesson to pastors not to stiff bands they hire to play.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
How about 'maybe?' Mudfrog.
'Not that it fits my understanding of scripture, not that I don't see it as misleading, etc. But just maybe the love of God is wider than the measure of my mind. Or our minds?'
Lovely hymn that comes from.
For the love of God is wider than the measure of our minds
And the heart of the eternal is most wonderfully kind.
I never ever forget that possibility. By all means let's get on with our knitting, of course, even stick our necks out about other folks' wool and needles. But a bit of humility rarely comes amiss, don't you think?
Well isn't that 'maybe' quite amazing!?
You can all jump up and down on those nasty fundamentalists with their 'magic words' and their easy, lacking in faith, vain repetitions and their little tracts that mention hell and repentance....
...but as soon as anyone mentions that possibly,
just possibly there might be another church where people might also recite some 'magic words' when advised by the priest during confession; or who might possibly think that the 'magic words' spoken over them as babies is enough to cleanse their entire soul of original sin, people get very offended.
I do not hold any brief for Church publications or those who think that saying the sinners' prayer, will get you into heaven.
But by the very same token I cannot believe that magic words spoken over water, bread or wine suddenly makes them effective means of saving grace regardless of the faith of the recipient or baptismal candidate or his/her sponsors.
If you want to rail against the use of magic words in place of deeply held faith and purposeful religious formation then logic dictates you must also say that sacraments without heartfelt faith are just meaningless magic words and actions that have no effect on a man's soul.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm afraid I've come across this easy-believism, 'just pray the Sinner's Prayer' schtick all too many times.
It's a form of reductionism and whilst based on what certain evangelicals do believe and practice, it's a kind of join-the-dots and dumbed down version.
It was popularised to a large extent by Campus Crusade (Agape) and their 'Four Spiritual Laws' which had a suggested prayer of repentance on the reverse.
It was also popularised by Norman Warren's evangelistic tract, 'Journey into Life' which had a potted explanation of the Gospel (from an evangelical perspective) and a version of a prayer of repentance/commitment or whatever you might want to call it.
The Billy Graham crusades, Luis Palau campaigns and all forms of popular evangelical evangelism contain versions of it.
As Mudfrog says, it's not intended to be a catch-all, get out of Hell free pass but it used very simplistically indeed - often by people who really ought to know better.
It can tend towards a view of faith as a 'work' and also to some kind of magic-formulae ... although those in favour of it tend to point to what they see as parallel or similar actions/gestures within Catholicism in order to get themselves off the hook ...
'See, it's not just us - look at those superstitious and ill-taught Catholics over there ...'
IMHO there are elements of naffness on both sides of this particular divide.
But I think it's disingenuous to claim that this kind of practice isn't common and isn't generally found across the evangelical constituency. It is.
The exceptions, as far as I can tell, tend to lie more among the more Calvinstic evangelicals and those Wesleyans - such as Mudfrog here - who haven't capitulated to a form of populist post-war Arminianism - a kind of US consumerist easy-believism that is all too prevalent across the Mid West and Southern States.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Cross-posted with Mudfrog ...
Yes, fundamentalism sucks. Get over it.
And yes, some sacramentalists treat the sacraments as if they were magic.
Both sides need to 'man up' and acknowledge as much.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Cross-posted with Mudfrog ...
Yes, fundamentalism sucks. Get over it.
And yes, some sacramentalists treat the sacraments as if they were magic.
Both sides need to 'man up' and acknowledge as much.
Thank you, you summarised my arguments perfectly ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And if I claim that very few evangelicals use 'magic words' then I am equally certain that most sacramentalists approach the font and altar with equal reverence, faith, prayer and purposeful self-examination.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Mudfrog, I didn't jump up and down on anything. I'm an active member of an evangelical church, have prayed with people who are seeking God. I'm advising humility in our own actions and the way we look at others.
Do I ever 'jump up and down' here? Well, maybe on some issues of justice I do. But not on being saved by grace through faith. That is a work of God to which I apply the reasoning of the original Gamaliel. The Spirit of God may use all of us through our service of Him, however many loose ends and imperfections there may be in that.
[ 14. January 2014, 10:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'd go further, Mudfrog, and suggest that there might be equally imbalances on both sides ... but then, I would, I'm awkward like that ...
It's difficult to quantify, of course. If you've got a large body, such as the Roman Catholic Church then the number of people who have superstitious or skewed views is going to be considerably high ... but whether this can be directly compared/correlated across to make onerous comparisons with evangelicalism is a moot point.
I might be provocative for the sake of it ...
At the risk of inflaming things, I'd suggest that whilst there is sufficient 'give' and elasticity in both systems, there is rather more 'give' in some of the more sacramental ones - insofar as they run the full gamut from 'magic words' and gestures through to a more fully-orbed and nuanced position that takes symbolism and so on very seriously ... but which occupies a both/and position ...
So, in terms of iconography, for instance - we see 'through' the icons but not 'without' them ...
But then, I'm making very fine distinctions.
I fully accept that the evangelical position is far 'stretchier' than its opponents may consider it to be, but I'm not sure there's as much 'stretch' in it as classic sacramentalism.
As for fundamentalism - you find that everywhere and there are sacramentalist forms of fundamentalism just as there are evangelical forms of it.
The problem with both is that they don't stretch or bend, they break.
Essentially, though, I'm broadly in agreement with yourself but would suggest that there is something inherent in the rather reductionist approach that many evangelicals take to these matters that gives rise to the problem that's being addressed here.
If I had a fiver every time I'd heard someone say, 'Yes, but he did make a commitment ...' every time someone had backslidden, wandered away or gone to the bad ... I'm afraid I'd be a wealthy man.
I've also heard people say of highly devout and otherwise clearly godly people, 'Yes, but they've never made a commitment ...' or 'I wonder whether they have ever asked Christ into their heart ...' or similar ...
Sure, I know what they're saying and don't deny the reality of conversions in settings which use this kind of reductionist terminology - far from it.
But it ain't the whole story and it ain't the whole deal. As all of us here are acknowledging.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Yes, speaking as a sacramentalist but also someone involved in anti-fundamentalism as a movement, there are absolutely sacramentalist fundies. They are usually converts though, which makes them relatively rare within sacramentalist denominations - most worldwide are not converts. I wonder if this is possibly why fundamentalist blossoms within non-sacramental Protestantism? That's not a criticism of non-sacramental Protestantism by the way, just that there's no zealot like a convert and converts are more common within non-sacramental Protestantism.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, I think there's something in that ...
However, I think we can run the risk of being too binary and neat on both sides of this equation.
I've found - online at least - that many RCs and Orthodox, for instance, try to distance themselves from the more fundamentalist or 'zealous' within their ranks by blaming it all on converts from other traditions ...
All very convenient.
In real life - and online - I've met highly fundie sacramentalist types who certainly didn't start out as anything else ...
But I take the point you're making.
However, as 'conversionism' is generally accepted as one of the Quadrilaterals of evangelicalism - according to Bebbington's useful summary - then it's hardly surprising that evangelicals are going to be conditioned into looking for conversion experiences or similar 'takes' and approaches to their own when they come across people from the more sacramentalist traditions.
Hence, they'll generally nod sagely and approvingly or welcome warmly anyone from a sacramentalist tradition who acts in a way which demonstrates - according to their criteria - some kind of conversion experience or 'saving faith'.
I can see this tendency in myself and I come from an evangelical background.
As Shippies know, I've knocked around with RCs and Orthodox a fair bit in recent years and initially I tended to make a bee-line for those who had come from similar backgrounds to myself. That's natural.
More recently, I've been more interested in hearing what 'cradle' RCs and Orthodox have had to say.
I wouldn't dismiss the reality of conversion experiences in the way that evangelicals have tended to understand them ... but they aren't found as strongly in either the Reformed or the more Catholic traditions ... at least, not in quite the same way.
It strikes me that the kind of 'magic words' approach is a kind of short-hand as much as anything else. It acts as a form of creedal statement or at least to confirm to those who look for it as some kind of indication that the person they're dealing with is 'born again' or 'saved' or a 'true Christian'TM.
Any number of bishops and clergy who were clerical garb when travelling have anecdotes about being nobbled by earnest evangelicals on tubes, buses and trains and asked, 'Are you saved?'
These sort of people won't be satisfied with anything other than a clear indication of a conversion experience marked, generally, with some kind of 'sinner's prayer' or prayer of repentance.
I know what they mean by it, but as some wag once said, the more sacramental churches have 'altar-calls' every single week - it's called the eucharist ...
It's easy to mock, but not everyone has a very nuanced view of theology and most people simply go along with whatever the prevailing ideology/way of doing things happens to be in whatever setting they're in ... and applies to sacramentalists and evangelicals and fundies (and I make a distinction between the two) alike.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Sure conversionism is one f the hallmarks of evangelicalism, but they're not the only ones. It's not as if the Jesuits are'nt looking for converts, is it?
The problem starts when someone starts thinking that the way they became a Christian is the only way to become one. If that person was generations ago it can become engrained as a tradition (especially in a tradition that "doesn't do traditions." ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
).
Jesus said, "whoever come to me I will never cast away." Just because the way you became a Christian is valid, and you wouldn't have become a Christian if it wasn't valid, does not invalidate other ways of becoming a Christian. I couldn't care how someone comes to Christ as long as they do.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Oh yes, Jack Chick is indeed real. Given the fundamentalism of his tracts, and the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Centre classes Chick Publications as a hate group, I think people should do more than sneer at them.
I think it does invalidate our repentance if it is done out of fear - that is not what God wants. It should be done out of love for God and others. Moreover, it invalidates out repentance if WE scare others into repenting by using the folk-devils of eternal fire and torment. It's not what the Gospel is for. Christ came not to condemn the world but to bring eternal life.
I agree with you that Mr Chick looks pretty dire. The Death Cookie is so offensive and spiritually disturbing that it makes me seriously worry for the state of his soul. However, two things,
1. How relevant are either anxiety about the baleful Mr Chick, or the concerns of the Southern Poverty Law Centre, which I've also never heard of, for the Christian scene in Northampton?
2. I don't agree that if someone repents for a reason that we don't regard as the right one, that invalidates their repentance or the faith to which that might bring them. People come to faith for all manner of reasons and by all manner of routes. Fear, a sense of sin, a vision of glory, all manner of things. I can't provide a link to it here, but there's no doubt that Bede recounts the Vision of Drycthelm (History Book V Ch 12) with the motive that this should be a terrible warning that should shake people into belief.
If you heard Joan Bakewell's interview with her over Christmas, Sally Phillips admitted that she had finally agreed to make a profession of faith to bring a discussion with a rather ebullient Christian friend to an end because it was 2.30am. She was surprised to wake up the next morning to realise that either she really had meant it, or that God had taken her words at face value.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62An old truth at work here. When it comes to being saved by grace through faith, formulaic approaches may have their place (though some of the formulae I've seen have struck me as unhelpful). But it is a huge mistake to think the grace of God is limited to the formula which fits our particular theological take. Conviction is the work of the Spirit of God. Trying to bottle that particular Person is like trying to bottle moonbeams. The wind of the Spirit blows where it wills.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
I grew up going to the kind of churches that believed in a magic formula type salvation prayer. Apparently I said this prayer when I was 5 - but then, what 5-year-old wouldn't, being told, as I no doubt was, that if you say this lovely prayer, then you'll be in God's lovely family forever and you'll go to heaven and not to hell? I got a bit worried when I was 10, because I realised I couldn't remember this prayer, and various friends were showing me a different prayer, and I wasn't sure if it was the same one (for instance, were the magic words supposed to be about asking Jesus into my heart or asking him to forgive all my sins?). So I said this one too, and then got upset, because I wasn't sure if I'd 'become a Christian' when I was 5 or when I was 10.
Years later, I was talking to some Norwegian friends who said that they found the whole UK concept of a 'spiritual birthday' (the idea that you become a Christian on a certain date and that's your spiritual birthday) quite bizarre, because in their experiences in Norway it was simply seen as a gradual process, especially if someone grows up in a Christian home, and people simply don't say that they became a Christian on a certain date.
I think I'm more inclined to see it the way my Norwegian friends described it. I think for me my faith has been (and still is) a process. There have been defining moments (not the 'magic prayer' moments though), but those have been times of growth, of learning, of understanding, rather than a single moment of conversion.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Having a bad memory + slightly different versions of That Prayer + a desire to get that truly embarrassing part of the children's meeting over and done with before the toast that we could smell from the kitchen got cold = That Prayer was prayed by me Way too many time and for usually Utterly the wrong reasons.
Did anyone care?
Did anyone ever think to mention it to me?
It would have been a kindness.....
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Absolutely to all the 'wind blows where it listeth' contributions ...
The thing is, even the most apparently 'water-tight' conversion stories don't entirely hold water ... they all leak.
Mudfrog might not agree, but a close reading of Wesley's Journal, for instance, shows that his famous 'Aldersgate Experience' - 'my heart was strangely warmed' - doesn't quite fit as snugly with subsequent Wesleyan and evangelical formulae as to to how this sort of thing is 'supposed' to happen ...
That's how Wesley can appeal to sacramentalists and evangelicals alike - because you can find evidence in his writings to fit all schemas ... and none ...
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
I knew a pastor who baptized people using two wording formulas "in the name of Jesus, in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit" because some groups insist it has to be "Jesus only" or has to be "F S HG" and reject the validity of baptism under the "wrong" formula.
A local church welcomes "all baptized Christians" to the table, which means they reject many SA folks and accept my atheist friends who were baptized as babies.
Some of the magic formulas probably come from simple human misunderstanding - one person directs another "baptize them in the name of Jesus" intending to convey a concept, but someone else hears it as a specific formula to stick to, and the formula becomes doctrine "to make sure we are doing it right."
Or someone wants to assure his worried friend "yes you are saved and going to heaven, relax" and an easy reassurance is point to a simple action - "you were baptized" or "you said the sinners prayer, remember?"
The problem is any of these magic formulas point us to what *we* have done instead of to what God has done, so they are distracting us from Truth. We are supposed to be relying on God's character, not on our actions, not on the behaviors or words of other human beings (baptizing us using the "right" formula).
Another magic formula in some churches is confession (to God). I heard a sermon illustration that if you smoke a cigarette while driving and a car crash kills you and you didn't have time to repent that cigarette sin you go to hell.
Magic formulas abound. Bet we could make a long list!
God is bigger than any of our formulas.
It's about who God is, not who we are or what we have said or done.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, you live in Texas, Belle Ringer ... enough said ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Belle Ringer -
The phrase "Christianised paganism" comes to mind...
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, you live in Texas, Belle Ringer ... enough said ...
LOL, it is sometimes, uhm, educational!
But we have the Marfa lights, too; it's not all Christianity variations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZwUHFzMY-Q
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
The problem is any of these magic formulas point us to what *we* have done instead of to what God has done, so they are distracting us from Truth. We are supposed to be relying on God's character, not on our actions, not on the behaviors or words of other human beings (baptizing us using the "right" formula).
...
It's about who God is, not who we are or what we have said or done.
I have an inner Calvinist who says "Amen" to all of this. I can never really shake him off.
But what of those who are not Calvinist? Is their formula not effective for some too?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
The problem is any of these magic formulas point us to what *we* have done instead of to what God has done, so they are distracting us from Truth. We are supposed to be relying on God's character, not on our actions, not on the behaviors or words of other human beings (baptizing us using the "right" formula).
...
It's about who God is, not who we are or what we have said or done.
I have an inner Calvinist who says "Amen" to all of this. I can never really shake him off.
But what of those who are not Calvinist? Is their formula not effective for some too?
LOL I don't know much about Calvin. I'm definitely not into selective predestination, but some say neither was he. But our formulas, those I've heard anyway, are exclusive, leave out some definitely interested people! God is bigger than our formulas.
I think focusing on "God is love, love never ends" is more assuring, more relaxing, more secure, than focusing on what some flawed human did or maybe didn't do right. "They say I was baptized as a baby but did they do it right or did someone miss a word and I wasn't really baptized in God's eyes?"
But then, the older I get the closer to universalist I become.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I don't know if this is an SA-specific belief or not. But I am confused by the idea that just saying "Jesus please save me, I believe in you" in the last moments before death is sufficient for salvation. This doesn't seem to line up with a more orthodox view of Christianity that involves baptism, repentance, and loving God and one's neighbor.
There is of course the thief on the Cross, but I've heard many times that as Jesus had not yet died and risen at that point, the promise of Paradise to the unbaptized thief is not something that carried over into the new covenant.
Jesus had the power to speak sins forgiven while he was on earth, Luke 5:17-25.
On Pentecost Peter taught repentance and baptism, Acts 2:38.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, Mere Nick, but neither of those necessitate any 'formula' for how we appropriate these things.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
he problem is any of these magic formulas point us to what *we* have done instead of to what God has done, so they are distracting us from Truth. We are supposed to be relying on God's character, not on our actions, not on the behaviors or words of other human beings (baptizing us using the "right" formula).
...
It's about who God is, not who we are or what we have said or done.
I have an inner Calvinist who says "Amen" to all of this. I can never really shake him off.
That's also at the heart of Lutheran theology. It's not about what we presume to do for God, but what God has done and is doing for us.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, Mere Nick, but neither of those necessitate any 'formula' for how we appropriate these things.
What formula for getting what things? In lieu of me rambling on, could you first tell me what you think I'm getting at and then what you are getting at? I guess what I'm saying is, in short, I agree with what appears to me as the gist of the OP.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Probably, Mere Nick.
I was simply stating something in response to your post - that however we understand Christ 'speaking forgiveness of sins' or Peter's Pentecost sermon about repentance and faith - with baptism ... they shouldn't be reduced to a formulaic response - whether in sacramental terms or a particular kind of evangelical 'Just say this prayer after me and you'll be saved ...' kind of way.
Which is probably what you were agreeing with any way ...
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
During my time time in evangelical/ charismatic circles, on more than one occasion I was asked for my "testimony" and some people had a big problem with the fact that I couldn't point to a "defining moment" when I had "chosen Christ/ prayed the prayer". Growing up in a catholic environment,it just wasn't how I had understood faith or my relationship with God. And it still isn't.
Now I know quite a few people from a variety of church traditions who have had Damascus road conversions but I also know lots of others who have simply grown up in the faith.
Some them are evangelicals who have "prayed the prayer" again and again from a place of anxiety that were somehow not "in". On reflection, I wonder if some of them then embraced charismatic experience in part because it fulfilled the need for these defining moments.
There are surely a myriad of ways in which we can respond to the grace of God. My understanding of salvation is that it is a process, a lifelong interaction with the saving grace of God.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Enoch - the Southern Poverty Law Centre is well-known. I'm also puzzled by the idea that I should only care about things that affect me personally. Why shouldn't I care about hate speech that happened elsewhere?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Enoch - the Southern Poverty Law Centre is well-known. I'm also puzzled by the idea that I should only care about things that affect me personally. Why shouldn't I care about hate speech that happened elsewhere?
Indeed, aren't we supposed to care about what happens to other people? "Love thy neighbor" and "do unto others" and all that? Or is that some other religion?
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
Saying the "sinners prayer" (which was how I always heard the magic words called) was, and as I understand, still is the big finale of any revival meeting. Usually with some altar call hymn such as "Just as I Am" droning endlessly on in the background. I always worried about the folks who felt compelled by group dynamics or even an actual stirring in their hearts to go forward and say the prayer, only to never follow up with words. Unfortunately, there are many preachers and evangelists who don't follow-up with their converts.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
Now I know quite a few people from a variety of church traditions who have had Damascus road conversions but I also know lots of others who have simply grown up in the faith.
There are still others who grew up without exposure to religion and gradually came to accept Christianity as adults.
There is a saying that I heard here on the ship, "Some people meet Christ on the road to Damascus and others meet him on the road to Emmaus."
Moo
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
Yes, you're right, Moo I know people like that too.
And thank you for that saying, I'd never heard it before and I really like it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, that's a good one, Moo. I'll use that.
Posted by Majorminor (# 17967) on
:
Sorry I'm coming to this thread late (I'm a new shipmate), but as a fellow SA Major to Mudfrog, I've never known a requirement that certain words are necessary in order to be saved. Have I missed something in SA training, and subsequent study??
Although I found the programme 'God's Cadets' fascinating. Loved the uncertainty of some of the officers- we're not all filled with absolute certainty all the time...are we?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Majorminor, welcome to the Ship!
Please take time to check out the Ship's Ten Commandments and posting Guidelines, and maybe pop over and say hi on the Welcome Aboard 2014 thread in All Saints.
There have certainly been Ship bell-ringers' meets in the past. Perhaps we could get a Ship's Sally Army band going...?
Eutychus
Purgatory host
Posted by Majorminor (# 17967) on
:
Why, thank you, Eutychus.
Umm...yes, there seems to be at least two of us Salvos here now, but...whisper this quietly...I don't like bands ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
There is a saying that I heard here on the ship, "Some people meet Christ on the road to Damascus and others meet him on the road to Emmaus."
Thanks for this Moo. Like Mrs Beaky and Gamaliel I'd not heard this before but I agree with them it is great - perfect combination of succinct and expressive
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Majorminor - welcome aboard. Good to have another Salvationist around to give Mudfrog moral support -not that he needs it necessarily, he can fight his corner and stand his ground ...
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that there's ever been an exact 'form of words' that are used by the Salvation Army or anyone else when leading people to salvation - in evangelical/conversionist terms.
That said, it can become rather formulaic at certain revivalist rallies and there is also the danger of 'easy-believism' - simply say this prayer and you're saved ...
As Mudfrog and others have said, other traditions have their equivalents that can equally be misunderstood or misrepresented - 'simply say 3 Hail Mary's and 5 Our Fathers ...' etc.
I think it's the assumption that the Gospel can be reduced to a simple series of propositions and our response codified into a set series of easy-peasy convenient fastfood steps that is causing the problem.
We all know that neither the Salvation Army nor any other evangelical church or evangelistic agency sees things in such terms - but it's understandable how and why people might get such an impression from seeing certain evangelicals in action.
I've not seen how the 'mercy seat' and so on operates in Salvationist circles so I can't comment on that, but I've certainly seen more than my fair share of fairly cack-handed 'altar calls' and so on in my time ...
Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I knew a pastor who baptized people using two wording formulas "in the name of Jesus, in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit" because some groups insist it has to be "Jesus only" or has to be "F S HG" and reject the validity of baptism under the "wrong" formula.
My criticism of this form of words is not that the two formulas are inconsistent, or that the combination is heretical, but that it is confusing.
I would ask the pastor if it obscures the essential Christian truth that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the incarnate Son of God.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I watched the BBC documentary "God's Cadet's" and was struck by comments made by two SA members who had relatives pass away without becoming Christians - both were struggling with the thought of their loved ones in hell.
They both said something to effect of "If only they'd said the 'magic words' about wanting to be saved by Jesus, they'd be in heaven." The woman said that someone told her, perhaps her sister thought the words in her head before she died.
I don't know if this is an SA-specific belief or not. But I am confused by the idea that just saying "Jesus please save me, I believe in you" in the last moments before death is sufficient for salvation. This doesn't seem to line up with a more orthodox view of Christianity that involves baptism, repentance, and loving God and one's neighbor.
There is of course the thief on the Cross, but I've heard many times that as Jesus had not yet died and risen at that point, the promise of Paradise to the unbaptized thief is not something that carried over into the new covenant.
Is this something other Shippers have come across, and if so do you think it is a valid position with any support from tradition or scripture?
If you've not done so reading the Wikipedia entry "Sinner's prayer" may give some background
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
Some people had a big problem with the fact that I couldn't point to a "defining moment" when I had "chosen Christ/ prayed the prayer" ... Now I know quite a few people from a variety of church traditions who have had Damascus road conversions but I also know lots of
I wonder why the story of Paul on the Damascus Road became so frequently understood as the "normative" conversion narrative, when there are clearly so many others - even from Acts - which could have been chosen? Perhaps folk were attracted by its drama.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I am preaching on Acts 18 this morning and partly thanks to this thread, have just noticed for the first time in my life that there is no record there of Priscilla and Aquila having a conversion experience or indeed believing in the Good News. They appear to go straight from being random Jews who Paul fell in with to explaining the way of God more adequately to Apollos before sending him off on mission.
And yes, I too will be using the "Damascus/Emmaus road illustration". Thanks, Moo!
[ 19. January 2014, 07:43: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not sure that Prescilla and Aquilla were 'random Jews'. They seem to have been in some kind of half-way stage ... perhaps being acquainted with John the Baptist type baptism rather than full-on Christian baptism ...
But I agree, it's not a clear cut thing.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Of course the text does not tell us the full story. But your speculation is not in the text, which is what the kind of people that go for "magic word" conversions claim to base themselves on.
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
I wonder why the story of Paul on the Damascus Road became so frequently understood as the "normative" conversion narrative, when there are clearly so many others - even from Acts - which could have been chosen? Perhaps folk were attracted by its drama.
I think the drama has a lot to do with it for both the convert and others, we all like a good story after all! The challenge comes in not making one's own experience (including any "magic words") normative for others but instead accepting that their journey is equally valid.
I also think there's a lot to be said for learning to tell stories in general from our experience in a way that inspires and encourages others without becoming formulaic.
[ 19. January 2014, 14:55: Message edited by: MrsBeaky ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, the 'random Jews' speculation isn't in the text either, of course ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Actually, Eutychus, it IS in the text. We're told in Acts 18 that Priscilla and Aquila were only acquainted with the 'baptism of John' - so there is some scriptural support for my speculations ...
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, the 'random Jews' speculation isn't in the text either, of course
Not the exact wording, perhaps, but Acts 18:1-2 says:
quote:
After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla
That reads like a chance encounter to me, in which Aquila is described not as a God-fearer, disciple, or a believer, but as a Jew, expelled from Rome as such. By the time we get to verse 26, by doing nothing more recorded than hanging around with Paul, Priscilla and Aquila are, in Luke's words, able to explain to Apollos "the way of God more adequately", bearing in mind that prior to this, Apollos was, again in Luke's words, already "a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervour and taught about Jesus accurately" (v24-25).
By the time we get to Romans 16:3 Priscilla and Aquila are Paul's "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" and 1 Corinthians 16:19 tells us they had a church meeting at their house.
My point, perhaps poorly explained, was that nowhere in the Scriptures which so many of the pray-the-prayer types claim to hold as the authoritative Word of God, does it say that Priscilla and Aquila went through anything like such a process.
Looking more closely still, in actual fact neither did Paul on the Damascus road.
One of the reasons I hesitate to describe myself as an evangelical these days is because where I am, at least, the more liberal types seem to pay more attention to what the actual words of the Scriptures actually say than the evos do. The "magic words" debate is a prime example of this.
[x-post]
[ 19. January 2014, 17:25: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Actually, Eutychus, it IS in the text. We're told in Acts 18 that Priscilla and Aquila were only acquainted with the 'baptism of John'
You are wronger than a wrong thing is mistaken.
Read my post, read the chapter, and get back to me.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
I think many Christians struggle with the tension between a binary eschatology - everyone destined for eternal bliss in heaven or eternal torment in hell - and the infinite gradations of goodness and evil, belief and unbelief, that they see in the people around them.
Seems to me that "magic words" is about trying to find an observable fork in the road - a touchstone which marks the place where the road to heaven and the road to hell divide.
Something that serves to distinguish the sheep from the goats.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'll certainly do that, Eutychus. I was quoting from memory and haven't read the salient passages in their entirety recently.
As for your point about neither Priscilla, Aquila nor the Apostle Paul - or anyone else in the NT for that matter - going through the kind of 'pray the sinner's prayer' type process so beloved of evangelicals - well, yes, that's axiomatic* and I completely agree with you.
*At least, it's axiomatic to me now but wouldn't have been at one time.
I'll have a look at the passages in Acts but it's a bit of a tangent because I agree with the point you're making even if I've differed on the detail. For all I know I might come round to your way of thinking on that too, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it as I'm not wedded to the version of events I put forward.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Russ - yes, I think that's it. I was at an ecumenical gathering earlier and the new Methodist minister preached. I could see the evangelicals present beaming when he gave a clear indication of a personal turning-point/conversion in the autobiographical part of his sermon - which fitted the context very well as it happened.
Some years ago, at an ecumenical service at a university where I worked, I noticed similar significant knowing nods, glances and winks when the speaker, a former RC chaplain, gave a similar snippet of autobiographical detail that denoted an almost Pauline, Damascus Road type experience ...
It's as if they were exchanging glances to confirm to one another that this guy was really one of themselves after all, for all his Popishness ...
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Russ - yes, I think that's it. I was at an ecumenical gathering earlier and the new Methodist minister preached. I could see the evangelicals present beaming when he gave a clear indication of a personal turning-point/conversion in the autobiographical part of his sermon - which fitted the context very well as it happened.
Some years ago, at an ecumenical service at a university where I worked, I noticed similar significant knowing nods, glances and winks when the speaker, a former RC chaplain, gave a similar snippet of autobiographical detail that denoted an almost Pauline, Damascus Road type experience ...
It's as if they were exchanging glances to confirm to one another that this guy was really one of themselves after all, for all his Popishness ...
This rings true for my experiences too. I find evangelicals are often very uncomfortable with other Christians who don't have any kind of Damascus Road experience, or who wouldn't speak in terms of being 'saved'.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'll certainly do that, Eutychus. I was quoting from memory and haven't read the salient passages in their entirety recently.
In that case it was foolhardy of you to tell me so loudly that I was wrong without even looking, having presumably read that I preached on that very chapter yesterday and I know you are wrong.
It's Apollos who knew only the baptism of John before he met Priscilla and Aquilas. We have no idea what the latter knew when they met Paul. We only know Aquilas is described as a Jew, not as a God-fearer, believer, disciple, believer-in-John's-baptism-only or whatever, any of which one could legitimately expect were it the case on the basis of how Luke introduces other characters in Acts.
In one way you are right that this is tangential to the topic at hand, but in another way I think your approach is, albeit involuntarily, entirely characteristic of the mindset that gets evos into teaching things like "pray-the-prayer".
They think they are teaching something "biblical", perhaps on the basis of a half-remembered passage, and are so caught up in their tradition (which they don't recognise as such) that they don't look at what the text actually says (not an interpretation - just the words on the page, as here) - and if they do, they mutter and say their teaching must be right anyway for some unspecified reason, or it doesn't really matter. I have seen this with my own eyes - and of course I have on occasion been guilty of it myself.
After a lifetime of reading it and sitting in evo meetings, it's sometimes really really hard to sit down and look at the Scripture and see what it actually says.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I am happy to stand corrected, Eutychus - I'd forgotten it was Apollos and not Priscilla and Aquila who knew only the baptism of John ...
One of the things I've noticed since I've moved away from my full-on evo-charismatic base is that my Bible reading has become more devotional - ie. Psalms, doxologies etc as part of my personal daily office etc and the various lectionary readings.
So, I've not done intensive Bible study for a few years now and tend to live off my hump. Clearly my hump-memory is playing tricks ...
Of course, it should be both/and and not either/or so I need to re-engage with some of this stuff and also not be too quick to sound off on a hunch as I have done on this occasion.
That'll learn me ... (as they'd say in South Wales)
Mind you, this bit made me wince ...
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think your approach is, albeit involuntarily, entirely characteristic of the mindset that gets evos into teaching things like "pray-the-prayer".
They think they are teaching something "biblical", perhaps on the basis of a half-remembered passage, and are so caught up in their tradition (which they don't recognise as such) that they don't look at what the text actually says (not an interpretation - just the words on the page, as here) - and if they do, they mutter and say their teaching must be right anyway for some unspecified reason, or it doesn't really matter. I have seen this with my own eyes - and of course I have on occasion been guilty of it myself.
After a lifetime of reading it and sitting in evo meetings, it's sometimes really really hard to sit down and look at the Scripture and see what it actually says.
You are absolutely right and have given me a valuable object lesson. I still feel a bit of a berk even though you have acknowledged that you've made similar mistakes.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
But faithful are the wounds of a friend ...
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
[code]
[ 20. January 2014, 09:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
Blimey, Gamaliel, that brought a tear to my eye!
As to reading the Bible, I can really identify with what you said. Both/ and indeed.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0