Come into My Heart, Lord Jesus? A Plea for Biblical Accuracy in Child Evangelism
First published at SI May 1, 2006.
Into my heart, into my heart,
Come into my heart, Lord Jesus.
Come in today; come in to stay.
Come into my heart, Lord Jesus.
Harry Clarke, Welsh song leader for Evangelist Billy Sunday, wrote these words in 1924. Who hasn’t heard these words sung at the end of an evangelistic challenge? I’m still amazed that many Christians still sing the lyrics after they already know the Lord.
The language of “asking Jesus into one’s heart” is part of a soul winner’s basic vocabulary, at least in my experience. It is firmly entrenched, it seems, especially in children’s ministries today. Consider this recommended prayer for children given by one church:
Dear God, Thank you for making a way for us to turn from the wrong things that we have done. I know I have done wrong things, but right now I want to look upon Jesus so that you will forgive me for the things I have done. Please let Jesus come into my heart, to live forever there. I want to live forever with God. Thank you for loving me. In Jesus Name I Pray, Amen
Now, to be fair, this prayer does deal with forgiveness of sin. It acknowledges the love of God. But what it fails to do is to lead a child to verbalize trust in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ! Isn’t that what the Gospel is all about?
Before I try to persuade you to stop using this terminology in your personal evangelism, let me assure you of two things:
- Some people are genuinely saved when asking Jesus into their hearts.
- There are many wonderful Christians who take the time to explain salvation clearly to children even if they use the “into my heart” phrasing.
Now, I know some of you are thinking right off the bat: this is just semantics. But is it? I was talking with a father in our church just last week, and he related to me how his young, preschool son firmly believes that Jesus lives in his real, physical heart. Just semantics? I don’t think so.
There are some legitimate concerns I have about the concept of “asking Jesus into our hearts.” Let me share them with you in the hope that, if nothing else, you will become even more committed to the precision we must have in communicating the Word of God.
Concern #1: It tends toward Easy Believism
There are Christians who are more interested in acquiring decisions for Christ than they are in making disciples of Christ. Often, “asking Jesus into your heart” becomes the magic formula for easy spiritual decision-making. Unfortunately, much of the time, these witnesses give an unclear and incomplete Gospel presentation. Consequently, many of the “decisions” made fall away in short order and were likely never genuine.
Concern #2: It is Exegetically Unfounded
Search the Scriptures. You will not find a passage through either precept or pattern where “asking Jesus into your heart” is employed in evangelism. Not once. Surely that must account for something. How can we be comfortable in using so consistently an expression that lacks ANY Scriptural support?
Some will ignore context and appeal to a passage like Revelation 3:20.
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me (KJV).
Although this verse is used heavily in evangelistic methodology, it is often taken out-of-context. In context, the Christian will find that Jesus is speaking to a church, a lukewarm church that has lost its fellowship with Christ. In John’s vision, Jesus tells this church He is knocking on their door and pleads with them to open the door and resume fellowship. It’s not about salvation.
Sometimes, instead of taking things out-of-context, we simply take them out-of-order. Such is the case for other New Testament verses where the result of salvation is turned to become the means of salvation. What about these verses?
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12).
To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory (Col. 1:27).
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me (Gal. 2:20).
Another popular Gospel song exclaims: “What a wonderful change in my life has been wrought since Jesus came into my heart!” Does Jesus really come in? The short answer is “Yes, He does.” We can’t dispute the clear teaching of these verses. But while Jesus’ indwelling is certainly a result of salvation, there is simply no biblical evidence that His spiritual entrance into our lives is part of the means of salvation.
Concern #3: It Easily Confuses Children.
Easy-believism angers me. Careless Bible study frustrates me. But taking the most important message in the entire world and making it confusing for little ones both angers and frustrates me.
Bob Wilkin in his book Don’t Ask testifies of the confusion this inaccuracy has wrought among children when he writes,
Years later I was teaching an evangelism course at a Bible College in East Texas. I had my students write out their testimonies after I had explained what I have recounted above. I found that quite a few of the students went through years of confusion because someone told them as children that if they asked Jesus into their hearts they would be saved. They wondered if they had done it right. They wondered if they had been sincere enough. So they asked Him in over and over again for years. They couldn’t gain assurance. Finally someone shared with them that to be saved they had to trust in Christ alone. Only then, by their own testimony, did they come to faith in Christ. Years of inviting Him into their lives had only confused and frustrated them.
Consider as well this personal testimony from Dr. John MacArthur:
And every time, as a little kid, that somebody said, “Ask Jesus in your heart,” I can remember saying, “Jesus, please come in my heart.” I can remember that over and over: “In case you’re not there, please come in today.” You know? I mean, I did that as a kid. I’d go to camp, the guy would give a message, and just to be sure, you know, I’d say, “Lord, if you’re not in my life, please…”
Then, of course, there is the problem that children are not generally able to think in the abstract until about age seven. So, we should not be surprised when children take “asking Jesus into their heart” in a literal way. We must be absolutely clear when dealing with children about their eternal souls. Remember, the Bible tells us that child-like faith is essential, but it does not say the same about child-like intellect. While many children are saved at a young age, they must understand the essential truths of salvation in order to properly direct that precious faith in trusting Christ.
Concluding Comments
I would like to show you an excellent model for explaining salvation to children. It’s posted on the website of Kids4Truth. Bob Roberts and the other magnificent people who run this ministry have dedicated their lives to making sure children learn the doctrine of God’s Word. Allow me to condense his article to just the main points. You can read it in full at “Questions About God.”
1. God wants you to honor and serve Him.
2. Your sin (breaking God’s rules) keeps you from pleasing God.
3. Sin is paid for by death and separation from God.
4. You cannot get to heaven by being good or doing lots of good works.
5. Here’s the best part. Christ paid for your sins.
6. Accept Christ’s payment for your sin.
7. Turn from your sin. Want something completely different than your sin.
8. God has made you a promise—eternal life.
Becoming a Christian is much like joining an army. It costs nothing to join but the good soldier is willing to obey and even lay down his life for the general. When somebody does join the army, their life is no longer their own. When somebody joins the army, they surrender their rights to their leader. That’s what God expects of us. Look at what Jesus said about becoming a Christian (follower of Christ):
Matthew 16:24-25, “Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.”
In order to become a Christian your will must be broken because it is naturally at war with God! In fact, the Bible says that our condition is pretty miserable, for we are born into this world:
1. An enemy of God (our will is against His will—Rom. 5:10)
2. Dead in sins (unable to anything that pleases God—Eph. 2:1)
3. Held captive by a foreign power greater than ourselves (Eph. 2:2)
4. A child of wrath (someone destined for eternal judgment—Eph. 2:3)
Have you ever seen a football game? There are two teams, each with different wills. One team desperately wants to run one way, and the other team wants to go the other way. They have opposing wills. We are born with a will that wants to do anything except turn from our sin and trust Christ for forgiveness! That’s why becoming a Christian is primarily a surrender of your will!
This is an excellent example of communicating to children the truth about salvation. I truly believe that if we are more careful and clear in communicating these truths to the minds of children, we will be able to avoid long periods of time in people’s lives when they aren’t sure of their salvation or have to keep making professions of faith to be sure. Now, I do think it’s important that if a child wants to express faith in Christ, we should encourage it—each and every time that desire occurs. At some point along the way, true faith will likely be expressed and assurance will come. We cannot see their hearts and must not put any stumbling blocks in their spiritual journey.
Ironically, four years before penning Into My Heart, Harry Clarke had written the music to another song entitled “What Must I Do?” I like the message of this song much better:
“What must I do?” the trembling jailer cried,
When dazed by fear and wonder;
“Believe in Christ!” was all that Paul replied,
“And you shall be saved from sin.”
Refrain:
Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ,
Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ,
Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ,
And you shall be saved!
What must I do! O weary, trembling, soul,
Just turn today to Jesus;
He will receive, forgive and make you whole;
Christ alone can set you free.
His blood is all your plea for saving grace,
The precious fount of cleansing!
O come, accept His love, behold His face,
And be saved forevermore.
Brian McCrorie is senior pastor of Heather Hills Baptist Church in Indianapolis, IN where he lives with his wife, Deborah and their five children. He is a graduate of Northland Baptist Bible College (Dunbar, WI) andCalvary Baptist Theological Seminary (Lansdale, PA).
- 780 views
From a writer’s/reader’s perspective: Not everybody has heard that first song; I haven’t. “Everybody has” statements are rarely good, and it turns me off when I am left out at the very beginning of an article. Better to say, “Most of us have probably” or “Many of us…” Assumptions get us in trouble, especially in our diverse world — even within fundamentalism. I know this is picky, but it really does affect the perception readers have.
Also, IMO, no Gospel presentation is complete without the Resurrection, either stated or already known. I suspect this is an oversight, not a theological difference between us.
Also, this statement is simply wrong:
In order to become a Christian your will must be broken because it is naturally at war with God!If the essentials of the Gospel ARE simple enough to explain to children, this cannot be one of them. I have been saved since 1974, and I don’t know that my will is broken. True, the Lord keeps fracturing parts of it, but if it were broken, I would be godlier than I am. And, if we were honest and not hiding behind terminology, I think we would all confess the same. If we cannot agree as to what such terminology means, how in this world can a kid understand this?
It is true that the natural man is hostile toward the true God, but this change takes place in the background; it is not, IMO, something we should present to the seeking child (or adult) unless the matter comes up.
Repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is what it is about. That’s Scriptural terminology. The whole “broken” terminology is as foreign to Scripture in context as is the “ask Jesus into your heart” terminology.
I can explain repentance. It is realizing that you have disobeyed God and wanting Him to help you obey Him (i.e., to “be saved from sin,” as the angel spoke of Jesus at His birth, “He will save His people from their sins”).
I have to say that, overall, the main thrust of this article was excellent.
"The Midrash Detective"
I believe that for many it is possibly with good intentions but with severe damage that they employ this phraseology thinking that if they super-simplify it and cozy it up with comfortable language it will help remove what they believe could be mental or emotional barriers a child might have in making a decision for Christ. The problem of course is that this phraseology also removes certain essentials of the gospel call.
As well some might argue, as Brian pointed out, that the Lord does come into us when we are saved and there are Scriptures to demonstrate this. But this “coming into us” by our Lord is a result of our faith or salvation, not the cause of it. It would be like saying, “God please fill me with the Holy Spirit” and believing something subsequent to salvation is an appropriate vehicle to salvation.
Clarity, clarity, clarity and Brian’s article says so much about that. If a child is not able to grasp essential concepts needed that they may understand the gospel then removing such concepts injures them and the gospel.
The Four Spiritual Laws tract is a great example of this problem. It’s structured around me and my response to God and seeks to thread the gospel in around that. If you look through the whole pamphlet, there isn’t a single clear reference to Christ’s deity, the single greatest doctrinal claim of early Christendom. People are reading things like this, and they might be believing the tracts, but that doesn’t make them Christians, just solafideists. Evangelicalism needs to return to Romans 10:9-10.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
In searching the Scriptures, Phil 1:7 says, “just as it is right for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart…” If Paul is using the phrase “have you in my heart to express his devotion and love for the believers he left in Philippi, then “come into my heart, Lord Jesus” should be understood to mean, fill my heart with devotion and love for you, Lord Jesus.” That is something that we should pray and over and over again.
From some research I’ve read, it was Billy Sunday’s crusades that were the first to have a “sinner’s prayer”. So just 100 years ago no one ever thought in terms of “sinner’s prayer”. But today almost every widely used presentation of the Gospel concludes with a sinner’s prayer!
I think ultimately we have a craving to contribute something to our salvation. We have to do something to “get saved”. But the Gospel is about God’s grace in saving us….
I’ve explored some of these thoughts before in one of the old SI threads, but also on my blog:
[URL=http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2009/08/21/mining-the-archives-why… Why Pray the Sinner’s Prayer?[/URL]
[URL=http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2007/08/14/the-sinners-prayer-prob… The Sinner’s Prayer Problem[/URL]
[URL=http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2007/08/23/more-on-asking-jesus-in… More on the Sinner’s Prayer[/URL]
[URL=http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2006/08/30/finney-and-altar-call/ Charles Finney and the Altar Call[/URL]
I share the links as they may help some looking for more on this. Great post on this Brian. Thanks again!
Bob Hayton
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Bob Hayton] Great article Brian. I think though, that we could expand its focus a bit. It is not just the “ask Jesus into your heart” terminology that is wrong. It’s the “sinner’s prayer” methodology itself which is wrong. Where do we find a Sinner’s Prayer used in evangelism in the Bible? Why do we feel we need to do that prayer?I agree. And not only this (the contribution aspect), but especially in the case of children, they may be given the impression that if they did not say the “magic words” just right (there are, after all, many versions of the “sinner’s prayer” given in tracts etc.), that they might not be saved. I have always advised against this in teaching child evangelism along with the “heart’s door” and images of a “black heart” and “white heart”…children are literal thinkers.
From some research I’ve read, it was Billy Sunday’s crusades that were the first to have a “sinner’s prayer”. So just 100 years ago no one ever thought in terms of “sinner’s prayer”. But today almost every widely used presentation of the Gospel concludes with a sinner’s prayer!
I think ultimately we have a craving to contribute something to our salvation. We have to do something to “get saved”. But the Gospel is about God’s grace in saving us….
Here’s an accompanying question: Is it good practice to have a new convert write something to the effect that “I was saved on [date] ” (sometimes even verified by the signature of the parent or teacher who shared the gospel with them) in their Bibles so “when they have doubts” they can refer back to this? This practice troubles me. I have known parents to point their children back to this type of relic when the child comes to them with doubts. *shudder*
FWIW…I know the chorus “Come Into My Heart” :). I think the Children’s Bible Hour used to use it at the conclusion of their Bible stories…
"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com
[Charlie] Ed, I’m glad you mentioned the resurrection. This article, to me, represents only a slight improvement over worse ways of witnessing, to children or anyone else. Christians throughout history have believed the gospel, which is first the story of Christ’s person and work, and second its implications for me. Protestants have held that justification is by faith alone in that gospel. Somewhere in America in the throes of revivalism a shift occurred. Now many evangelicals believe in justification by faith alone as the gospel.Charlie, I agree. Objective soteriology — how did God provide salvation for us — is more or less the Gospel (Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again on the 3rd day). The Reformation was really about subjective soteriology — how do we make the work of Christ ours? Does it come by faith alone (the Reformers), or is it meted out in small increments through sacraments administered by an ordained, exclusive priesthood (sacerdotalism)?
The Four Spiritual Laws tract is a great example of this problem. It’s structured around me and my response to God and seeks to thread the gospel in around that. If you look through the whole pamphlet, there isn’t a single clear reference to Christ’s deity, the single greatest doctrinal claim of early Christendom. People are reading things like this, and they might be believing the tracts, but that doesn’t make them Christians, just solafideists. Evangelicalism needs to return to Romans 10:9-10.
Romans 10:9-10 is important, but it is not as complete as I Cor. 15:1-7. Rom. 10:9-10 does not mention the atonement at all; but, combined with the other “Romans Road” verses, (like Romans 5:8-9, for example), it does the job.
The relationship of believing in the divinity of Christ to salvation is tricky. We know a true believer will not deny his divinity, but it also seems people come to saving faith with a hazy perspective on this. At Moody, Dr. Renald Showers asked the class, “How many of you did not really comprehend that Jesus was God when you were saved?” Over half the class raised their hands.
All this to say that I agree that the divinity of Christ should be presented (I like the Evangelism Explosion presentation myself), but a lot of people do not seem to grasp that until AFTER salvation. I agree with Showers, that no truly saved person will reject the deity of Christ once confronted with it, but many are saved without grasping that.
"The Midrash Detective"
[Ed Vasicek]The problem with Showers, Ed, is that the illustration assumes what it attempts to prove. How does a person know when he was saved? The answers that the students gave simply reflect what they already believed about what a person needs to understand to be saved.
The relationship of believing in the divinity of Christ to salvation is tricky. We know a true believer will not deny his divinity, but it also seems people come to saving faith with a hazy perspective on this. At Moody, Dr. Renald Showers asked the class, “How many of you did not really comprehend that Jesus was God when you were saved?” Over half the class raised their hands.
All this to say that I agree that the divinity of Christ should be presented (I like the Evangelism Explosion presentation myself), but a lot of people do not seem to grasp that until AFTER salvation. I agree with Showers, that no truly saved person will reject the deity of Christ once confronted with it, but many are saved without grasping that.
I don’t think it’s that tricky, if we believe the Bible. I won’t get into a debate about the details of knowledge of OT saints or even the disciples during Jesus’ ministry, but at least starting with the resurrection of Jesus, I’m not at all hesitant to say that the central proclamation of the Christian kerygma is the Lordship (deity) of Christ. In Acts, the evangelistic preaching of Christ’s identity and resurrection is more prominent than the cross. Throughout the epistles, the deity of Christ receives equal, if not greater, weight than penal substitutionary atonement or justification by faith alone. So, it makes no sense to me to think that the deity of Christ could be understood later, unless you are willing to say the same about PSA and sola fide.
I also wonder from whence comes this idea of “you don’t have to believe it to become a Christian, but no true Christian will deny it.” Really? Is there any biblical passage that warrants placing any doctrine in such a category? I’ve actually heard the same from some IFB hyper-soulwinner types about the resurrection. No kidding, Ed. In one church, I was told by a pastor I was “complicating the gospel” for insisting that gospel presentations include the resurrection. As proof, I was introduced to converts who “didn’t know about the resurrection when they got saved.” Hence my lack of enthusiasm for the Showers illustration.
This thinking stems from the modern revivalist idea that the new birth is an experience or a decision, so if I’ve felt some kind of subjective experience that I think is being born again, or if I’ve made my decision, you can’t question the genuineness of my conversion, no matter what the Bible says. Becoming a Christian, as you pointed out, may involve more than Romans 10:9-10, but it does not involve less.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie][Ed Vasicek]Well, Charlie, it is hard to argue against the idea that the epistles put a high premium on the deity of Christ. They certainly do emphasize it. But the preaching in Acts you cite and the idea of Lordship being equal to deity might be so, but I don’t know if it is as apparent as you might think. The one passage that lists the things of “first importance” in the Gospel message, I Cor. 15:1-7, does not clearly mention the deity of Jesus, although that may be assumed. So many passages clearly teach the deity of Christ, that it might be assumed.
This thinking stems from the modern revivalist idea that the new birth is an experience or a decision, so if I’ve felt some kind of subjective experience that I think is being born again, or if I’ve made my decision, you can’t question the genuineness of my conversion, no matter what the Bible says. Becoming a Christian, as you pointed out, may involve more than Romans 10:9-10, but it does not involve less.
In Acts, in some ways, we are back to the discussion about what they actually did preach. We have only glimpses, so perhaps you are right. I don’t find a super-clear concept of the deity of Christ in the preaching at Pentecost, but we do not know all that was said and expounded. The problem is that the word “Lord” can mean many things in the NT; I agree that it sometimes does mean YAHWEH when referring to Jesus, and perhaps the Apostles used Yahweh (when they preached in Hebrew or Aramaic to the crowds; we have only a Greek translation). But, at least in English or Greek (lord or kurios), it is easy to also understand “lord” as “master,” meaning the Messiah or one to be served.
Although the suggestion you offer is theologically neat, I don’t think it is as clear as you might suggest. The deity of Christ IS clear in Scripture, but the idea that one must understand the deity of Christ to be saved seems to hinge around that ambiguous word, lord.
"The Midrash Detective"
It is best to keep all concepts of submission, sacrifice and service out of the Gospel. One can only do such after they are regenerated. Regeneration, along with Justification, occurs by means of that mystical but real union with Christ (Rom. 6:1-11). That spiritual union is the essence of salvation which involves justification and regeneration. (Titus 3:4-8). Taking up the cross and following Jesus Christ has been mentioned. This is at Matthew 16, Mark 8, and Luke 9 and was a challenge given to “the disciples” of the Messiah. They were already saved. Indeed, except for Judas, the Apostles were probably saved as Jewish followers of YHWH prior to the Messiah calling them to follow Him. It was only natural that regenerate Jews be chosen by Messiah. This is the explanation for the abrupt manner of the invitation by Jesus who would later inform them that “my sheep hear my voice and follow me” (John 10:27).
We should not put the burden of human reformation, sacrificial service, or the understanding of all involved in the theology of the human condition, upon the unregenerate, especially children. We are to give them the Gospel of grace. It is sufficient that they acknowledge their sin and need of forgiveness available in Christ. That appears to be the message of historical simplicity and meaning given by Paul (1 Cor. 15:1-4).
What I am saying is that it appears best to keep it sufficient in information but still simple, clear, and emphasizing that it is of grace, love, and the sacrifice of another for us. We are to “receive” the free gift by the simple act of believing it and relying upon it. We do not submit or sacrifice for our salvation or commit to do so. Instead we rely only on Christ and His sacrifice for us. It is the reliance upon another that is conveyed by our believing.
I like the way some lead children to Christ by asking them to “ask Jesus into their hearts” than I do the many who never use any words of invitation.
If we are not giving good news then we may not be giving the clear gospel . The coming of Christ was declared by the heavenly host to be “glad tidings of great joy.”
The recent confusion regarding the gospel of grace created by a few is unfortunate. We should not let such confusion lead us to undue criticism.
[Bob T.] To point out that the heart is a metaphor for the inner part of the person is helpful. It is not the best invitation for such response to ask a person to “ask Jesus into their heart.” However, if it is explained that it is a prayer of belief in Jesus that asks him to bring the gift of salvation, which begins with Jesus coming to live spiritually in our lives, then it can be that which has some meaning.Why introduce less exacting terms and have to further explain their synonymous intent and meaning when presenting the gospel and telling a child that if indeed you do “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (short-hand for the gospel) you will be saved”? Isn’t “believing” actually easier to communicate than having to take another step and explain one can also use the words “ask Jesus into your heart” and it means believe? What would be the purpose of circumventing the use of the word “believe” for a less clear phrase that has to be explained when children already have a frame of reference for believe?
Particularly in church settings, young children should be taught the gospel and taught to ask their parents questions about it (or if in an unsaved home, to ask a church leader about it) of their own initiative. We should encourage children to believe and advise them to look for signs of that belief in their life. We shouldn’t encourage them to trust in some act of submitting their will, and then trust that since they did that act everything will be fine. We are not saved by acts we do, but by the grace that comes to us from the Bible.
The Gospel isn’t only an entrance exam into the Christian faith. It is the means by which we advance and grow. It is how we live the Christian life day in and day out. So the Gospel should continually be taught and explained all throughout a child’s attendance at church.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
MacArthur (who is one of my favorites apart from his over-correction with the Lordship deal) communicates the idea that we are producing false converts by means of easy-believe-ism, the implication being that they would be GENUINELY saved if we demanded more from them. Making the Gospel easier or more difficult does not change who the elect are.
The parable of the wheat and tares implies that it is Satan who plants false converts in the kingdom. I have seen many blades of wheat and many of tares who made professions with a Dallas “easy believism” and MacArthur’s strict version.
Yes, we should debate what is and is not an accurate Gospel presentation, because the truth of God’s Word is worth expending energy over; the church is to be the pillar and support of the truth, and sloppy theology is a blight. And, since the Gospel message is an unusually important teaching of Scripture, we are right to correct ourselves when necessary.
So, in the name of accuracy, we are best to stick to terminology used in the Word (in context) when possible. This is a good approach toward any doctrinal subject. But let us not think that a honed presentation can transform tares into wheat.
The “ask Jesus into your heart Gospel” can be about appropriating the work of Christ — if that has been adequately explained. If the essentials of the Gospel (I Cor. 15:1-7) have not been explained, even a good invitation is probably not all that wonderful.
But why not have a good explanation and a good invitation? To me, a good invitation for children would be, “Would you like to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ? Do you want Him to help you do what is right? Would you like to know that your sins are forgiven? You can by believing that He died for your sins and rose again. You can tell God you believe in the Lord Jesus right now. If you would like to do that, pray this prayer….”
"The Midrash Detective"
[Ed Vasicek] But why not have a good explanation and a good invitation? To me, a good invitation for children would be, “Would you like to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ? Do you want Him to help you do what is right? Would you like to know that your sins are forgiven? You can by believing that He died for your sins and rose again. You can tell God you believe in the Lord Jesus right now. If you would like to do that, pray this prayer….” [emphasis mine]Which brings us back to my post…is this good? To give children the words to pray? I am more inclined to provide a sort of simple sketch of what such a prayer should look like so that it is obvious there is thought in what they say and that they are not trusting in saying the “right words”…am I overthinking things?
Also, what about the “verification” of such a decision by logging it into the front of the Bible? Bad idea? Good idea? Is this just sort of an Ebenezer?
"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com
[Ed Vasicek]What purpose could this serve? I will use my own personal illustration this time. A few months ago a friend from high school, who I had not talked to since high school, called me up and related to me that he had recently been through a series of events that demonstrated to him his need for God. At the end, he asked if I would “lead him to Christ.” I said no.
But why not have a good explanation and a good invitation? To me, a good invitation for children would be, “Would you like to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ? Do you want Him to help you do what is right? Would you like to know that your sins are forgiven? You can by believing that He died for your sins and rose again. You can tell God you believe in the Lord Jesus right now. If you would like to do that, pray this prayer….”
My friend had gone through Christian high school and made a profession of faith. After high school, he had made a series of very ungodly choices. Now he was waking up to the reality of what was going on. But, I explained to him that salvation is through faith in Christ, nothing more, nothing less. If he was at that moment trusting in Christ alone for his salvation, then he was saved. If not, that is what he must do. There isn’t any room for me in it. I did pray with him, but not a sinner’s prayer.
What good purpose could an invitation such as you have described serve? Let’s examine the words you chose. “Would you like to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ?” I’m assuming that this would come after a clear presentation of the gospel. If so, the correction question is not, “Would you like to?” but “Do you?” At the point in time that the gospel has been preached, the people hearing it either believe it or they don’t. They don’t stay in a neutral zone until some Christian worker asks them if they would like to believe. It’s a nonsensical question. We ask people if they would like to engage in actions, not if they would like to believe certain truths. I can ask you if you would like to go hiking with me, but I cannot ask you if you would like to start believing in aliens. You either do or you don’t.
“You can tell God you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ right now.” Again, I simply do not understand what this statement means or how a child is supposed to perceive it. The only result I can imagine is the child confusing his telling God about his belief with the belief itself.
In my mind, (most) invitations, sinners’ prayers, signing names at the ends of tracts, etc. are all attempts to answer the “Now what?” Because we humans are terminally works-centered, even when we hear the gospel and the call to believe, we think there must be something more, something to seal the deal, some ritual dance, some “now what?” attached to believing in Christ. There isn’t. There isn’t any thing you do or place you go “in order to believe” in Christ. When I explain the gospel to people, I simply tell them that if they do believe what I have just told them, they need to be baptized. Baptism is the biblical answer to the “now what” (leaving aside the case of covenant infants).
This helps tremendously with assurance of salvation. I can’t tell you the number of people who have come to me with questions about assurance of salvation. They start telling me there life story, and I interrupt them and say, “Do you believe in Christ?” They usually go, “Huh?” Then I say, “Right now, is your trust in Christ alone and what he did for you, and not at all in your own works or deserving?” Usually, they say, “Of course, but….” not understanding quite how that is significant to the matter at hand. However, once you get them to realize that their present faith, not some event in the past, is the decisive point, they’re much more secure.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Featured Resource
Discussion