The "Five Steps"

[DCR]

I guess I'm missing any kind of example of "Pray this prayer, asking Jesus into your heart, and you will be saved," in how the gospel was preached and how folks were told to respond to it in the Bible.

You won't find it.  Or the 5 Steps.  You will those who live by faith in Christ in the bible.

You may not find them listed specially as "five steps," but I would say that you'll find each of those five mentioned at one time or another in scripture. 


hearing the gospel?  yep it's in there.
believing?  yes... it's there
repenting?  yep... there again
confessing?  it's there.
baptism?  it's there

asking Jesus into your heart in a scripted prayer for salvation?  nope, can't find it.

 

[Bocephus]

I guess I'm missing any kind of example of "Pray this prayer, asking Jesus into your heart, and you will be saved," in how the gospel was preached and how folks were told to respond to it in the Bible.

You won't find it.  Or the 5 Steps.  You will those who live by faith in Christ in the bible.

You may not find them listed specially as "five steps," but I would say that you'll find each of those five mentioned at one time or another in scripture. 


hearing the gospel?  yep it's in there.
believing?  yes... it's there
repenting?  yep... there again
confessing?  it's there.
baptism?  it's there

asking Jesus into your heart in a scripted prayer for salvation?  nope, can't find it.

 

I agree that you can't find the Sinner's Prayer.

But, find me one place where it is listed as the steps to salvation in one passage.  If you can't, it is a man made salvation formula.

I don't think it is too shocking that one could hear the gospel, mentally assent that Jesus is Christ and mentally assent that He rose from the dead, audibly repent, confess with their mouth, and be baptized, and not really have true faith.

[DCR]

I don't think it is too shocking that one could hear the gospel, mentally assent that Jesus is Christ and mentally assent that He rose from the dead, audibly repent, confess with their mouth, and be baptized, and not really have true faith.

That's why the occasional but lesser known "six step" is sometimes given... "live faithfully until death." (from Revelation). 

But, (more seriously) I think the "belief" step is understood to be "true belief" or "true faith."  Someone might claim faith (belief) but not really have it.  So, in the true sense, if we're using the five steps, then they haven't actually fulfilled that "step" (even though others might have been fooled into thinking they did).

Same is true with repentance.  If the person doesn't actually have true faith, then they don't have true repentance either (since true repentance is actually of the heart and mind... not just action alone).

We could say that steps 1, 4, and 5 are visible/audible or otherwise externally verifiable to everyone else.  But, only God knows whether steps 2 and 3 have actually been completed (again... if we're going by the five steps.  I'm not necessarily crazy about approaching it in that way either).

[Bocephus]

I don't think it is too shocking that one could hear the gospel, mentally assent that Jesus is Christ and mentally assent that He rose from the dead, audibly repent, confess with their mouth, and be baptized, and not really have true faith.

That's why the occasional but lesser known "six step" is sometimes given... "live faithfully until death." (from Revelation). 

But, (more seriously) I think the "belief" step is understood to be "true belief" or "true faith."  Someone might claim faith (belief) but not really have it.  So, in the true sense, if we're using the five steps, then they haven't actually fulfilled that "step" (even though others might have been fooled into thinking they did).

Same is true with repentance.  If the person doesn't actually have true faith, then they don't have true repentance either (since true repentance is actually of the heart and mind... not just action alone).

We could say that steps 1, 4, and 5 are visible/audible or otherwise externally verifiable to everyone else.  But, only God knows whether steps 2 and 3 have actually been completed (again... if we're going by the five steps.  I'm not necessarily crazy about approaching it in that way either).

If #2 was understood to be true faith, what is with all the steps?  Baptism is a submission of faith.  Confession is making your faith known.  Repentance is changing your life because of faith.

[DCR]

If #2 was understood to be true faith, what is with all the steps?  Baptism is a submission of faith.  Confession is making your faith known.  Repentance is changing your life because of faith.

Here's a possible shocker... perhaps, not everyone who explains things in terms of the "five steps" believes that faith/belief means mental assent only.

Potentially, you could categorize it all under the banner of "faith"... even if "faith" itself is called a step in this construct.  There's nothing that would stop someone from doing that.  Steps 3 through 5 could be said to flow out of step 2 (which is faith). 

The "five steps" are just a tool (a credal construct) to organize one's doctrine just like the "five solas" (faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone, scripture alone, god's glory alone) or even the five points of Calvinism are.

[DCR]

(Split from the "Shocking Sermon" thread in the main Theology forum.)

For a little historical perspective, I think what is now currently thought of as the "Five Step Plan," finds its origin in Walter Scott "five-finger" exercise."

Walter Scott

According to this (perhaps Lee has more information), the original "five" were:

Faith to change the heart.

Repentance to change the life.

Baptism to change the state.

Remission of sins to cleanse the guilt.

The gift of the Holy Spirit to make one a participant in the Divine Nature.

So, it's a bit different.  I think I actually like Scott's original five better. 

By the way, this was apparently originally preached in a Baptist Church. 

I need to read some more on this.  Maybe more later.

[Serenity432001]

I think the "5 steps" are like a lot of things.  They started out with good intentions being a good tool to use in having a relationship with God and then man stepped in and made it more about what man does than what God does and it turned into a list of things to be done for some instead of the original intent.  But of course, hearing, believeing, repenting, confessing and being baptized are all wonderful things to do but when we limit ourselves to that or do it in just some check list fashion we miss the point, imo.

[Bocephus]

If #2 was understood to be true faith, what is with all the steps?  Baptism is a submission of faith.  Confession is making your faith known.  Repentance is changing your life because of faith.

Here's a possible shocker... perhaps, not everyone who explains things in terms of the "five steps" believes that faith/belief means mental assent only.

Potentially, you could categorize it all under the banner of "faith"... even if "faith" itself is called a step in this construct.  There's nothing that would stop someone from doing that.  Steps 3 through 5 could be said to flow out of step 2 (which is faith). 

The "five steps" are just a tool (a credal construct) to organize one's doctrine just like the "five solas" (faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone, scripture alone, god's glory alone) or even the five points of Calvinism are.

The Sinner's Prayer WAS just a tool, the method became the madness.  With regard to the 5 Steps, the method has become the madness as well.

[Lee Freeman]

(Split from the "Shocking Sermon" thread in the main Theology forum.)

For a little historical perspective, I think what is now currently thought of as the "Five Step Plan," finds its origin in Walter Scott "five-finger" exercise."

Walter Scott

According to this (perhaps Lee has more information), the original "five" were:

Faith to change the heart.

Repentance to change the life.

Baptism to change the state.

Remission of sins to cleanse the guilt.

The gift of the Holy Spirit to make one a participant in the Divine Nature.

So, it's a bit different.  I think I actually like Scott's original five better. 

By the way, this was apparently originally preached in a Baptist Church. 

I need to read some more on this.  Maybe more later.

Yes, Scott developed this when the Campbell Churches were still afiliated with the Baptists-Scott himself was appointed evangelist of the Mahoning Baptist Association in 1827.  He developed his "five-finger exercise" as a quick memory aid to help mostly illiterate frontier people remember the chief points of conversion which he taught in his messages. You could literally tick the points off on one hand.


Walter Scott (1796-1861) came to Pittsburgh from Scotland in 1818 and became a protege of Campbell's in 1822, going on to become one of the Movement's greatest preachers. Scott published his own religious newspaper entitled The Evangelist. It was Scott who restored what he called "the golden oracle," the "central truth" to Christianity, or, rather unencumbered it from the layers of additions via creeds and traditions which he believed had obscured it. This was the proposition that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" and was for him the "central truth and great essential element" of Christianity." Scott was also premillennial in his eschatology and defended the personal indwelling of the Spirit in the 1850s, at a time when many brethren were pushing an extreme rationalism that limited the Spirit's working to the Bible alone.


Here is Scott's own Testimony:

"Our main thought at that time was to push back the christian profession on to its original basis-the Messiah. We did this, and the people were received to the remission of sins on the primitive faith of Jesus as the Son of God. But although this was the actual and practical restoration of the central truth in our religion to its proper place in the christian system, many failed nevertheless to see it, and were carried away wholly by the easier and more popular generalization of faith, repentance, baptism, &c., till, in fact, they do not know their own principles when they are advocated." (Walter Scott, "Union." The Evangelist, September 25, 1844, p. 292)

"We have chosen this truth as the central thought of our own religion-that our Redeemer is the Son of of the Living God; . . ." (Ibid.)

Scott understood the "central truth" of Christianity, but lamented that some of the brethren did not, confusing faith, repentance, baptism etc. with Christ crucified, which was supposed to be the central truth of the faith. And that's exactly what did happen by the time of Wallace and Moser in the 1930s, 40s and 50s-Wallace preaching faith, repentance, confession, baptism and the Church, and Moser preaching Christ crucified. "The Man vs. the plan." And Scott's original five-finger exercise got changed to hear; believe; repent; confess; and be baptized.

Pax.

[marc]

Kind of funny to come here and see this.  I was just talking to my aunt about Scott's original 5 steps, and abouthow he'd have listeners (kids?) make a fist until they got home, then open up the fist one finger at a time and "preach the gospel". 

She said she liked those five better.

[James.]

I don't think it is too shocking that one could hear the gospel, mentally assent that Jesus is Christ and mentally assent that He rose from the dead, audibly repent, confess with their mouth, and be baptized, and not really have true faith.

That's why the occasional but lesser known "six step" is sometimes given... "live faithfully until death." (from Revelation). 

But, (more seriously) I think the "belief" step is understood to be "true belief" or "true faith."  Someone might claim faith (belief) but not really have it.  So, in the true sense, if we're using the five steps, then they haven't actually fulfilled that "step" (even though others might have been fooled into thinking they did).

Same is true with repentance.  If the person doesn't actually have true faith, then they don't have true repentance either (since true repentance is actually of the heart and mind... not just action alone).

We could say that steps 1, 4, and 5 are visible/audible or otherwise externally verifiable to everyone else.  But, only God knows whether steps 2 and 3 have actually been completed (again... if we're going by the five steps.  I'm not necessarily crazy about approaching it in that way either).

If #2 was understood to be true faith, what is with all the steps?  Baptism is a submission of faith.  Confession is making your faith known.  Repentance is changing your life because of faith.

And that's how it's often preached in places I've been.  How the "five steps" are referenced is yet another example of great variance.  I wasn't exposed to them in a legalistic, formulaic sense until well after I came to Christ and ran into more of those legalistic, formulaic type churches/people.  Because of that, I don't have nearly the angst others do when they hear them (unless I hear them presented in a legalistic, formulaic sense, obviously). 

To us, it was more of an easy way to remember how we respond in faith. 

[DCR]

Like any extra-Biblical construct, I think the "Five Steps" can and should be subject to criticism.

But, I do have a hard time dismissing the specific contents of this "plan."  This may be a case where we don't like the forest, even though the trees within the forest are sound.

I think I first learned the "five steps" when I was about ten years old from a lady teaching the Bible class I was in.  We had to memorize different things... included was the "hear, believe, repent, confess, and be baptized."  In my mind, I can still see those "steps" written down in the notebook I had.

The interesting thing is that I've never heard those steps laid out in that particular way very often in sermons or otherwise, especially in more recent years (since we seem to have moved away from that approach somewhat).  Granted, traditional sermon "invitations" would usually include some reference to one or more of the points, without spelling it out as a "five step plan." 

Most "invitations" (our version of what other traditions refer to as the "altar call") by most of the preachers I've heard would typically go something like this...

"If anyone is here this morning who may be subject to the Lord's invitation... if anyone has the need to confess your faith in Christ and be buried with Him in baptism, come now as we stand and sing."

So, faith and baptism were usually touched on.  On slightly less frequent occasions, the preacher would go into a more verbose invitation that would more closely resemble the "five steps."

At the church where I now attend, to even mention baptism at all in a sermon is more the exception than the rule. 

It's usually only a very generic "invitation"... basically, to come forward, if you need anything (without getting into the details).  We actually have a designated "prayer room" where responders have the option to go and meet with one or more elders for prayer (which might be an option for someone who's shy about walking up front).


Anyway... all that to say... in the final analysis, I find it hard to completely get away from the contents of the "five steps."  I've been critical with the best of 'em toward the concept of the "five step plan."  Yet, if I were talking to someone who has an interest in coming to Christ...

If someone asks me about how to become a Christian... my response, in all honesty, is gonna sound pretty darn similar to the five step plan, as much as I would try to avoid it.

My response to that would have to include belief/faith in Christ, repentance, confession, and baptism.  (To go over "hear" as the first step seems a bit academic and unnecessary, since that's already a given at that point.)  Yet, I wouldn't describe even the other things as "steps."

To talk to the person about belief/faith?  What's wrong with that?  All of us would agree on that.
To talk to the person about repentance?  I think we would all say that this is appropriate.
To talk to the person about confession of our faith in Who Jesus is?  Again... I think all of us would say that this is fundamental.
To talk to the person about baptism?-- This is where it might get sticky... since we might argue about what baptism is and what the purpose of it is.  Yet, when it all comes down to it, I think most here agree that this is a fundamental Biblical response to the Gospel (without getting into discussions on the true necessity of it or whether salvation technically occurs before or after it).


So, as much as I like to criticize that "plan," I believe it has served me well to help keep track of these fundamentals of the Gospel response in a somewhat easy-to-remember form... even if it has possibly been abused or misunderstood in certain cases.

[Harold]

If I believe God then acting on what I believe, I think I would have to do all of the five steps.

Just me though.

FTL

[Bocephus]

If I believe God then acting on what I believe, I think I would have to do all of the five steps.

Just me though.

FTL

Are you buying a stairway to heaven?

[James.]

Of course not.  That's like saying someone calling 911 saved themselves from their heart attack.