Is asking Jesus into your heart wrong?

I think we would be better served if we didn't use such a phrase. I think it stems from Revelation chapter 3 where Jesus says I am standing at the door knocking. Most people believe that to be saying that He is standing at the door of someone's heart waiting for them to invite Him in.

However, eternal salvation is not the context and it has been misapplied to evangelism.

I think our evangelism needs some serious re-working!!

 

I'm preparing a sermon to be delivered in a few weeks as to the 7 reasons you should not ask Jesus into your heart. I took the 7 points from a tract written by someone else, but they are valid points.

#1 Don’t ask Jesus into your heart because IT IS NEVER FOUND IN THE BIBLE.
#2 Don’t ask Jesus into your heart because IT IS NOT HOW ONE IS SAVED.
#3 Don’t ask Jesus into your heart because IT REQUIRES NO UNDERSTANDING OF
THE GOSPEL OF GRACE TO DO IT.
#4 Don’t ask Jesus into your heart because IT CONFUSES THE MEANS OF SALVATION WITH THE RESULTS OF SALVATION.
#5 Don’t ask Jesus into your heart because IT EITHER RESULTS IN NO ASSURANCE OF SALVATION OR BRINGS A FALSE ASSURANCE TO PEOPLE.
#6 Don’t ask Jesus into your heart because REVELATION 3:20 DOES NOT TEACH IT.
#7 Don’t ask Jesus into your heart because IT DOES NOT CLARIFY THE CONDITION OF SALVATION, IT CONFUSES IT, ESPECIALLY WITH CHILDREN.

BTW, when Jesus is standing at the door and knocking in Revelation 3:20, it has to do with fellowship, not with spiritual salvation.

 

The critisism of the phrase is much ado about nothing. And the idea that we suld not use it simply because it is not a phrase found in scripture makes it hard to maintain doctrine in other areas.

One example is in our use of the word Trinity. If you follow the teachings of John Calvin then you will most certainly struggle with this phrase.

I think this question could reasonably be asked, Does God enter into our hearts at the point of salvation? Does Gd become part of our mind, our heart, our life? A second question could resonably be asked, should there be a desire in our hearts to have the indwelling of God? If you answer yes, then why do you care if it is phrased that way by someone else?

Yep, it does we need to be doing more of it. As far as the gospel message and how the message is preached. the Old Time gospel Message is good enough for me.

P.S. Why has it become so hard to correct typos. You have to retype a whole sentence to fix one mispelled letter?

 

The only thing I dont like about Way of the Master is they always throw in repentance with trust.

People say they are going to repent and they dont even know what that means. I know some leave confused by that or it leads to works where they try to think of every sin they have done and say sorry. Or think they are saved by not doing the sins anymore. How many people think that repentence means that you dont do that sin anymore, and that is how you are saved. That is works.

I was watching one the other day were the guy said he was going to hell because of all the bad things he has done. Kirk Cameren told him all he needed to do was repent turn away from sin and trust Jesus. The guy said he could never stop all the sin in his life and walked away.

I believe repentence is something that the Holy Spirit does to us. It is part of sanctification that happens after we are saved by trusting in Jesus. I think it is the same as being born again. The word Metanoia (repent) mean New mind or change of mind. It is changing your mind about sin or changing your mind about needing Jesus. The Holy Spirit convicts us of sin and testifies of Jesus. The Holy Spirit changes our mind by His conviction. I dont think you can be saved with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and not be repentent.

Repentence is not something we do for ourselfs it is something the Holy Spirit does for us.

 

I agree this may be not the best, most theologicly correct phrase. But is it not just saying, Lord I am open to you and submit to you.

Is that so bad. After all tracts like this are ment for people who dont know any theology. They are ment to be the simple and easy. If a person honestly and truly submits to the Lord Jesus and trusts him for salvation then they are saved. Right?

They can learn the finer points of doctrine later from the Bible under the guidence of the Holy Spirit.

Are you sugesting that tracts should contain detaled doctrine. That would be confusing and would not serve the purpose intended. It may look better to people who are already saved and have some knowlege but to a person who is not saved and has no knowlege it just looks like complicated doctrine.

 

Those of you who have attended church all of your lifes seem to have the most problem with tracts.

Those of us that were saved later in life. And used tracts to help us understand what being saved means, dont have such a problem with them. I was saved while being walked thru a tract that said something alot like what you have described. I learned from it that the only way to be saved is to put my trust in Jesus for my salvation.

It was a Roman roads tract.

 

The problem with our watered down evangelism is that it has produced water down Christians that have no desire to become disciples.

It's one of those things if it ain't broke don't mess with it, but it's broke and needs looked at.

We need to be sharing the Truths about sin and that there is a Saviour that can redeem you if you believe that He paid the penalty for your sin with His substitutionary death and shed blood.

The reason people don't share that message is because it's not a fancy message and sharing about blood and death may turn people off, or telling someone they are a sinner may be offensive, or helping someone admit that they are a sinner is to pushy, etc., etc.

Let's just let the Bible be the Bible and let's just share straight up the message of the good news of Christ's death according to Scripture and then let's just leave it up to God to do the rest. That's what we are supposed to do anyway.

But us stupid humans think we can do it better than God and so we dress up the message and make it not quite as confronting or not quite as harsh and we put some fancy graphics around it...blah, blah, blah.

And what do we have to show for our efforts? Blah...blah...blah Christians.

 

Perhaps part of the problem here is that we tend to speak "Christianese". That is, we use phrases and words that are metaphorical ("into our hearts" is hardly something a cardiologist would say, and "knocking at the door" has nothing to do with your house!) without interpreting them or translating them for the culture outside the church. So how would we phrase the invitation to "receive" or "accept" Christ (yes, I know we can debate those verbs too) in such a way that it avoids in-house language and gets through to the world outside?

In some congregations where I have preached, I have found that when I issue the invitation at the end of my message, some folks think I have not done it right unless I say something like, "The doors of the church are now open"! Sounds to me like an invitation to LEAVE!

This past Sunday a layman at the church where I was preaching said to me, "You and our pastor are just the same; you speak Christianese and I have to interpret it." Ouch!

 

That's a point of contention, as the preceding Scripture shows Christ offering the spiritual counterparts to their industry. If they need to "buy from Him", they don't own it yet, showing total separation, not just fellowship...

Rev 3:17Because you say, 'I'm rich; I have become wealthy, and need nothing,' and you don't know that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked,
Rev 3:18I advise you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire so that you may be rich, and white clothes so that you may be dressed and your shameful nakedness not be exposed, and ointment to spread on your eyes so that you may see.

 

This is something we're struggling with in our church. Parents of some of our children are telling their young children (3,4,5 yrs old) how much Jesus loves them. That's good! And then they're asking them, "don't you want to ask Jesus into you heart?" And, of course they want to. But the problem is that these children don't even realize that they're lost, myuch less in need of a Savior. I'm always afraid of "picking the fruit before it's ripe," encouraging children to make some kind of decision for Christ before they're ready.

These well-meaning parents then come to me wanting their children to be baptized because they are now "saved." "They prayaed the prayer." "They've asked Jesus to come into their hearts." It has become somehwhat of a problem here.

Just ask Jesus into your heart? I'm not convinced that that's enough.

 

OUCH SBC that is a tough situation you are in. I pray God will give you guidance and wisdom to counsel those folks! Stand firm on the written Word my friend!!!

Webdog the problem is that John is writing about the church. In the context of the messages to the churches it is only saved individuals that are in view.

These are saved individuals that think they have all they need and their job is finished (much like most Christians today believe that after they are saved that is the end of the road and it's just awaiting game until God beams us up to heaven). Salvation by grace through faith is not the end of the road, but just the starting gates to a race of the faith as Paul tells it.

Unfortunately most of Christendom doesn't even know what the race has to do with much less actually participating in the running of it.

 

xdisciplex,

bmerr here. Again, I would council you to go to the book of Acts, which is in large part a book of conversions, and examine the pattern found there of preaching, belief, repentance, confession, and baptism. Believe what they were taught, and respond as they did, and you'll be what they were: a Christian. Not a "Baptist-Christian", or a "Methodist-Christian", or any other kind of hyphenated "Christian", just a Christian. Anything more is actually less.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Bmerr why would you instruct someone to read a book that doesn't have anything to do with eternal salvation until Chapter 16 and then try to add to what the text says. The text says believe.

Did he get baptized? Yes. Did his family get baptized? Yes. But what was the answer to his question about salvation? Believe.

Quit trying to confusion a simple message.

 

When I prayed to God after becoming a Christian, I didn't pray the "sinner's prayer," at least not the way it's usually worded. I prayed, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, please forgive me of all my past, present, and future sins." Does that mean I prayed wrong and I'm not really saved even though I didn't specifically ask Jesus into my heart?

Here are some links to two tracts that might be helpful if one is unsure of one's salvation:

http://www.tractleague.com/tract.php?print=1&id=181

http://www.tractleague.com/tract.php?print=1&id=141

 

What you pray is irrelevant. It's what you believed that matters. At the point you believe you were saved did you have faith that Jesus Christ died in your place and shed His blood as your Substitute? If you believed that then you are saved.

If you have never believed that then a re-evaluation of what you believed in is in order.

Just as a side your future sins will be forgiven after they are committed and after they are confessed (I John 1:9).

The idea that the church teaches that all your sins have been dealt with at the time of salvation is an errant message. If there is no continual confession there is no forgiveness.

 

Hope of Glory and J Jump got it right!

Folks, the point that needs to be emphasized is, if a person is trusting ANY prayer to get them to Heaven, they are damned! We are saved by grace through faith, not faith through prayer.