Some have claimed that it is wrong to call for a “decision” from sinners in evangelism, and that this method would often result in false converts. However, Jesus and the apostles often pressed for instant decisions to follow or to reject Christ. The complaint is a false diagnosis targeting ministries that have produced far greater success than the boring and powerless religionists. It is an attempt to explain those people’s own failure to produce converts, due to their faithless doctrines and institutions.
Any method can result in false converts and temporary followers, even due to no fault of its own. The important issue is to implement effective follow-ups. Although a mere cry of “Lord Jesus!” is sufficient to save if it comes from faith, on our side the work is not finished when a man claims to believe in Christ. Many people who followed Jesus abandoned him as he continued to preach truth, practice righteousness, and perform miracles. This is the way to reduce false converts.
Of course it is a “decision” when one converts to Christ. It is false and stupid to say that it is not a decision. And it can be an instant decision. It can even be an easy decision. If one intensely desires to follow Christ, then God is already at work in him and the person will decide to follow Christ, and it will be easy for him to make this decision. It is idiotic to suppose that it ought to require much seeking, thinking, and agonizing calculation to sincerely convert. It is idiotic to suppose that we should not call for a definite confession, or that a definite confession counts for nothing, but that the person should marinate in church until we somehow grow accustom to him and consider him a believer.
The issue is not whether it is a decision, but the cause of that decision. If it is God’s decision to cause a rebirth in that person and then cause him to make the decision to follow Christ, then that man’s decision will be genuine and lasting, leading to a life of blessing and meaning, of faith and love, of truth and power, of prophecies and miracles.
Another claim is that it is misleading to lead someone in a “sinner’s prayer” to express faith in Jesus. It suggests to the person that he is saved from that point forward, just because he has repeated the prayer, when he might not be converted. Rubbish. No one preaches that a person is saved by mindlessly repeating a prayer. However, Christians who declare that “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” should at least offer some help to those who wish to call on the Lord!
The Bible includes examples where individuals who did much less than the sinner’s prayer were acknowledged as genuine converts. If a sinner desires to follow Christ, leading him in prayer to express his faith is only an aid to take him toward that direction. If it is explained correctly, it will not mislead a faithless person into thinking that he has become a genuine believer. Pretending to call on the Lord will not save a reprobate, but those who are stirring with faith will be saved when we hold them by the hand and show them how to call on the Lord.
A church should indeed refine its methods and explanations to limit the number of false converts, but a church is far worse when it does not produce any converts at all because it preaches a theology that is without faith and practices a ministry that is without miracles. What produces a false convert — what produces a double son of hell — is faithless religion and manmade tradition, hiding behind historic human orthodoxy and institution.
Such a ministry from hell will become jealous of those who have genuine success, that is, those who gather up loads of men and women for God as Peter gathered up the fish at the command of Christ. This requires a decision as momentous as the decision of conversion — choose faith and life in Christ, or choose faithless rituals, doctrines, and hypocrisy in the religion of man.