May we say to the unconverted, "Christ died for your sins"?

[moral necessity]

I just wonder......of those whom we feel comfortable to even say such thoughts to....how do we know that they are even elect at all? Could not they fall away from the faith within the next 20 years or so?

If there's evidence of regeneration, it'd be foolish to say otherwise. We don't have to have certainty to declare someone a brother in Christ, or else we could declare no one as one of the elect.

Paul said, "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge" (1 Cor. 8:9-11).

This would show that it is okay to say someone is redeemed, provided we have evidence; certainty is not required.

I agree with you, and I guess, in a roundabout way, that was the point I was trying to make. I call many people my brothers in Christ based upon their profession of faith. I speak of them as if "Christ had died for their sins." Could I be wrong about their true status before God? Very possibly. So, I'm using the phrase in a general way to someone who it very possibly might not really apply. So, I don't see much difference in doing that as I would in speaking it in a similar manner while evangelizing. Anyway, just wanted to clear up the thought I was intending to get across.

 

[CDM]

My thinking:

Well, DID Christ die for the sins of everyone? No.
Therefore, I will not tell people Christ died for their sins.

I will tell people, as we have example in scripture: Christ died for sinners; Christ died for the sins of his people; Christ will in no wise cast off those who repent of their sins and come to him in faith, etc.

 

[nicnap]

My thinking:

Well, DID Christ die for the sins of everyone? No.
Therefore, I will not tell people Christ died for their sins.

I will tell people, as we have example in scripture: Christ died for sinners; Christ died for the sins of his people; Christ will in no wise cast off those who repent of their sins and come to him in faith, etc.

 

[Michael Doyle]

My thinking:

Well, DID Christ die for the sins of everyone? No.
Therefore, I will not tell people Christ died for their sins.

I will tell people, as we have example in scripture: Christ died for sinners; Christ died for the sins of his people; Christ will in no wise cast off those who repent of their sins and come to him in faith, etc.

 

[Confessor]

I agree with you, and I guess, in a roundabout way, that was the point I was trying to make. I call many people my brothers in Christ based upon their profession of faith. I speak of them as if "Christ had died for their sins." Could I be wrong about their true status before God? Very possibly. So, I'm using the phrase in a general way to someone who it very possibly might not really apply. So, I don't see much difference in doing that as I would in speaking it in a similar manner while evangelizing. Anyway, just wanted to clear up the thought I was intending to get across.

I think it would be a category error to say that you generally tell brothers and sisters (siblings?) in Christ that Christ died for them and therefore you can tell any sinner who has not yet repented that Christ died for them. The former have evidence of regeneration while the latter do not.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

And, I would say that when Paul addresses a church (that has not abandoned or virtually abandoned the gospel) he uses the "judgment of charity" in addressing professors of faith according to their profession, that is, as being what they claim to be. Therefore since he's now speaking to present professors of faith, his choice of words is bound to reflect his present, rather than past, relation to these persons.

I was thinking of this when the question was asked. In reference to the visible Saints, in fact, I think it is very common to exhort at large and remind what Christ has done for the Church. I've known at least one young man that I believe was a Christian for several years who was converted by my teaching on Romans 6. He had been struggling with sin for years and understanding the believer's union with Christ crystallized the Gospel for him. Obviously, I cannot be certain of such things but it was a turning point for him.

I think the Epistles are full of this kind of language and it is one of the reasons I have a problem with attempts by some Churches to claim to know who the regenerated are. I believe the Gospel goes out with a command to each of us: "Today, if you hear His voice do not harden your hearts." I believe men and women who have sat in preaching for years may be converted, Today, by the hearing of the Word and there are times, in the normal preaching of the Word, that the announcement is made to the Church that Christ died for Her. I think she is especially privileged to receive this News in a way that a person outside the Church cannot.

 

[KMK]

May we say to the unconverted, "Christ died for your sins"?

This reminds me of a quote from Calvin's Institutes that I read today.

If anyone, then, can use this word (free will) without understanding it in a bad sense, I shall not trouble him on this account. But I hold that because it cannot be retained without great peril, it will, on the contrary, be a great boon for the church if it be abolished. I prefer not to use it myself, and I should like others, if they seek my advice, to avoid it. 2.2.8

Perhaps there is an obscure way that we can say to the unconverted, "Christ died for your sins," but 'can it be retained without great peril'? I think that it should be abolished (like the word 'free will') since it is easily replaced with statements like, "Christ died for sinners," which are more of a 'boon' to the church.

 

[toddpedlar]

Can I ask why you would tell an unconverted person this? Dissembling is a sin and I simply cannot understand why anyone would advocate its practice, especially in bringing Christ to people who do not know Him - but if I have heard your reasoning on this correctly, that is exactly what you're advocating.

You have stated that when you say to this unconverted person "Christ died for your sins", you understand that you cannot be saying for certain that Christ's death procured the person's salvation. You can only mean that at the very least he procured some benefits for this person, but maybe he in fact died to purchase salvation.

When a person hears this, what will he hear? I cannot think other than he will hear "Christ died to pay the penalty for your sins and thereby procure your salvation."

Why would you EVER say something that will almost certainly be misunderstood?

If the person hears this, he may very well say "Good, then what reason is there that I have to believe in Him and submit to Him as Lord? Given that He died to cover my sins, I can happily go on in my sin and I'll go to heaven when I die." What POSSIBLE motivation would telling a person this give him to come to faith? If he does, he will almost certainly embrace a faith wherein he views his act of faith as casting the winning vote in some sort of God vs. Satan election. You told him that Christ died for Him - he understood that to mean that his sins were covered, but only if he made Christ's payment good by believing. This is an Arminian half-truth.

Why be so deliberately obscurantist in evangelism? Why not give the person the truth? You're surely not going to win someone over by giving him a half-truth. The gospel is not that Christ surely died for that person's sins - the gospel is that Christ laid down His life for those who are His sheep, those who entrust themselves to Him. I honestly think telling an unconverted person something that will undoubtedly be misunderstood, that you then have to, if you are willing to renege on your original dissemblance and explain truthfully, is unbecoming of a Christian.

 

[toddpedlar]

An added analogy.

When a you tell some unconverted person "Christ died for your sins", while meaning what you have argued you mean, Bob, and knowing that this person very likely will misunderstand the meaning and appropriate something to himself that is not correct, it is very much like the following hypothetical.

Suppose it was the case that Christ died for all those who comb their hair.

You happen upon someone who wears dredlocks (i.e. does not comb his hair, ever) and will not have any other way of wearing his hair because of his religion (i.e. he's a Rastafarian). However you also know he has a pet rabbit (actually a Belgian hare) whom he dearly loves, and likes to keep nice and neat.

So, because you know his tendencies and likes and dislikes, you tell him, in the presence of his pet bunny, "Christ died for those who comb their hair". You know what you mean, but also that likely he will hear this as "who comb their hare" and be satisfied that he is in with Christ because he is diligent about his pet care.

See the problem in this? It's the same, it seems to me, as your own hypothetical case, and wrong to practice, for the same reasons.

 

[moral necessity]

I agree with you, and I guess, in a roundabout way, that was the point I was trying to make. I call many people my brothers in Christ based upon their profession of faith. I speak of them as if "Christ had died for their sins." Could I be wrong about their true status before God? Very possibly. So, I'm using the phrase in a general way to someone who it very possibly might not really apply. So, I don't see much difference in doing that as I would in speaking it in a similar manner while evangelizing. Anyway, just wanted to clear up the thought I was intending to get across.

I think it would be a category error to say that you generally tell brothers and sisters (siblings?) in Christ that Christ died for them and therefore you can tell any sinner who has not yet repented that Christ died for them. The former have evidence of regeneration while the latter do not.

I figured you'd say that, but let me ask you, what evidence do you persoanlly have of my repentance that goes beyond a profession of faith? I want you to know that I'm not arguing for the ability to tell the masses that Christ died for their sins, in that I am no advocate of Universal Redemption. I just think that, as I implied before, there are some grey areas of overlap, just as there are with baptism. But, I wonder, how does one initially come to the place where they "close with Christ" without first having a knowledge that he died for their own personal sins? If they are to place faith in an atonement, how are they to do so, unless they first believe that atonement was accomplished for them? The knowledge of his atonement for us is supposed to give us something to believe, and the motivator to drive us to repent and believe, not vice-a-versa. Sometimes, I think our Calvinism gets in the way of our sincere offer of the Gospel. It doesn't have to though. The gospel is for "whosoever will" place their faith in the work of Christ for them. But, a work of Christ for them has to exist in their minds first, does it not, for them to place faith in it? How about the snake on the pole for the Israelites? Did not Moses place the snake on the pole as the cure being offered to everyone? Or, did he say, "God gave this snake on this pole to save some of you, but you must first turn to look at this snake in repentance before I will tell you that it is here to deliver you"? What kind of ground for faith is that? Rather, knowing that God placed that snake on the pole for each of them individually is the ground for each of their faiths, and is the motivator for each individual to turn and look to the cure. It's hard to balance this with speaking from the perspective of God, I know, but I think some scripture lends itself to not restrict the proclamation of the gospel to only speaking from his point of view.

This tends to be how I think for now, but I respect those who differ. Let me know what you think, brother. As always, I look forward to your thoughts.

Blessings and fellowship!

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

I figured you'd say that, but let me ask you, what evidence do you persoanlly have of my repentance that goes beyond a profession of faith? I want you to know that I'm not arguing for the ability to tell the masses that Christ died for their sins, in that I am no advocate of Universal Redemption. I just think that, as I implied before, there are some grey areas of overlap, just as there are with baptism. But, I wonder, how does one initially come to the place where they "close with Christ" without first having a knowledge that he died for their own personal sins? If they are to place faith in an atonement, how are they to do so, unless they first believe that atonement was accomplished for them. The knowledge of his atonement is supposed to give us something to believe, and the motivator to drive us to repent and believe, not vice-a-versa. Sometimes, I think our Calvinism gets in the way of our sincere offer of the Gospel. It doesn't have to though. The gospel is for "whosoever will" place their faith in the work of Christ for them. But, a work of Christ for them has to exist in their minds first, does it not, for them to place faith in it? How about the snake on the pole for the Israelites? Did not Moses place the snake on the pole as the cure being offered to everyone? Or, did he say, "God gave this snake on this pole to save some of you, but you must first turn to look at this snake in repentance before I will tell you that it is here to deliver you"? What kind of ground for faith is that? Rather, knowing that God placed that snake on the pole for each of them individually is the ground for each of their faiths, and is the motivator for each individual to turn and look to the cure. It's hard to balance this with speaking from the perspective of God, I know, but I think some scripture lends itself to not restrict the proclamation of the gospel to only speaking from his point of view. This tends to be how I think for now, but I respect those who differ. Let me know what you think, brother. As always, I look forward to your thoughts. Blessings and fellowship!

I think Charles raises an important point, When he writes above, "If they are to place faith in an atonement, how are they to do so, unless they first believe that atonement was accomplished for them," he's probably stating the matter in a way that seems a bit strong to some of us--or at least in a way that calls for careful qualification. All of us, I assume, including Charles, believe in a limited or particular design behind Christ's atoning work. We believe that Christ died in order to secure efficaciously atonement for his people, that is, the elect.

On the other hand, can we not say that Jesus died in order to make atonement available to any and to all who will believe? Is it not possible that God's love for the world in John 3:16 is not referring there to his electing love for his particular people but rather to his general benevolence for sinful mankind and that that love is demonstrated in the sending of his son to be a sacrifice for human sin? Hence, the atonement reveals God's salvific stance towards all men indiscriminately. Can we not say to sinners, "Jesus died for your sins" in the sense that he died that they might look to his atoning death as a sufficient sacrifice for their sins and, as a result, receive forgiveness?

A number on the list have expressed above their preference for the phrase, "Jesus died for sinners." I've no objection to that phrase. However, when I make that statement on the heals of demonstrating to the audience to which I preach that they are all sinners (Rom. 3:10ff; 23), am I not implying by way of logical inference that in some sense Jesus died for them? That is, You are a sinner > Jesus died for sinners (the elect in one sense; all mankind in another sense) > Jesus died for you (in at least a general sense).

Some may think that statements of intention must always be interpreted efficaciously. If Jesus died in order that men might be saved then those all men for whom he died must be saved. I affirm this at one level--when the elect are in view. Nevertheless, not all statements of intent need be interpreted as efficacious. When Jesus says to his Jewish opponents (many of whom were most likely reprobate) in John 5:34, "I say these things so that [hina] you may be saved," he does not mean for us to conclude that all within earshot of his preaching must be numbered among the elect since, after all, his intent (I say ... in order that) cannot be thwarted. In this case, Jesus is merely expressing his desire (in keeping with the revealed will of God) that all men indiscriminately look to his person, words, and work as the only hope of salvation (John 14:6).

The bottom line is this: is it biblically or theologically illegitamate to say to sinners, "Jesus died for our sins" or "Jesus died for your sins"? From a biblical standpoint, I've suggested that 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 may give us warrant to do so. If Paul's original message to the uncoverted Greeks of Corinth was "Christ died for our sins," then he may be interpreted as saying, in essence, "We're all sinners, Jews and Greeks. Jesus died to provide an atonement for such people. That is, Jesus died that our sins might be forgiven. Therefore, look to him and his atoning death as the hope of your salvation." I grant that Paul's words might be interpreted differently. But I'm not certain the interpretation I've suggested above is exegetically, contextually, or theologically unviable.

Theologically, I think it's possible to maintain both a limited efficacious design behind Christ's atonement while simultaneously affirming an unlimited non-efficacious intention behind that atonement. This, as Charles notes above, relates somewhat to the free offer of the gospel.

Your servant,

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Can I ask why you would tell an unconverted person this? Dissembling is a sin and I simply cannot understand why anyone would advocate its practice, especially in bringing Christ to people who do not know Him - but if I have heard your reasoning on this correctly, that is exactly what you're advocating.

You have stated that when you say to this unconverted person "Christ died for your sins", you understand that you cannot be saying for certain that Christ's death procured the person's salvation. You can only mean that at the very least he procured some benefits for this person, but maybe he in fact died to purchase salvation.

When a person hears this, what will he hear? I cannot think other than he will hear "Christ died to pay the penalty for your sins and thereby procure your salvation."

Why would you EVER say something that will almost certainly be misunderstood?

If the person hears this, he may very well say "Good, then what reason is there that I have to believe in Him and submit to Him as Lord? Given that He died to cover my sins, I can happily go on in my sin and I'll go to heaven when I die." What POSSIBLE motivation would telling a person this give him to come to faith? If he does, he will almost certainly embrace a faith wherein he views his act of faith as casting the winning vote in some sort of God vs. Satan election. You told him that Christ died for Him - he understood that to mean that his sins were covered, but only if he made Christ's payment good by believing. This is an Arminian half-truth.

Why be so deliberately obscurantist in evangelism? Why not give the person the truth? You're surely not going to win someone over by giving him a half-truth. The gospel is not that Christ surely died for that person's sins - the gospel is that Christ laid down His life for those who are His sheep, those who entrust themselves to Him. I honestly think telling an unconverted person something that will undoubtedly be misunderstood, that you then have to, if you are willing to renege on your original dissemblance and explain truthfully, is unbecoming of a Christian.

Todd,

Are you asking me this on the basis of my post or somebody else?

 

[KMK]

A number on the list have expressed above their preference for the phrase, "Jesus died for sinners." I've no objection to that phrase. However, when I make that statement on the heals of demonstrating to the audience to which I preach that they are all sinners (Rom. 3:10ff; 23), am I not implying by way of logical inference that in some sense Jesus died for them? That is, You are a sinner > Jesus died for sinners (the elect in one sense; all mankind in another sense) > Jesus died for you (in at least a general sense).

It seems more logical to me to put it this way: You are a sinner in need of salvation > Jesus died for all who believe they are sinners in need of salvation > Jesus died for you if you believe you are a sinner in need of salvation.

This way you avoid implying to the unrepentant that in some sense Jesus died for them.

If Jesus wanted to send the message that he died 'in some way' for all, why would he say to the Pharisees in Matt 9:13, "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

 

[DonP]

Why we call each other brother - Christ died for you

Good humanistic reasoning and logic here, that if we baptize non-elect and we call non-elect brother, in church etc. why not tell a non-professor that Christ died for them? Seems like this is being consistent, though both could be wrong.

Please consider this. In the OT we see God establishing a covenant people.

People apart from their own will, were born into this covenant.

They were referred to as "the People of God" Children of God, etc.

We know not all of them were converted or elect, but still called My people.

But God no where calls those who are elect, but not yet converted and who are living outside of the covenant people, the Children of God etc. The titles are not for the elect, but for those living in the visible covenant whether they are in the eternal invisible covenant or not. Though we see the promise to all nations eventually. "Those who were not ... They shall be called My People", but not until after they believe and join the covenant.

This is the weakness for the Baptist who think they should only baptize true believers. They can't. They can't know who is elect. So we do not baptize only believers, we baptize those who make a profession and become members of the visible covenant.

So what we see is one reason everyone should be a presbyterian and hold to covenant theology and not be modern dispensationals.

That is, those in the covenant, by birth or by "choice" and profession, receive special treatment. They are holy, in some sense of the word, 1Cor 7:13, though perhaps not converted, distinctly separate from the heathen. They get the benefits of being in the covenant, as Paul mentions the profit of having been Jews. There was no outcry of moms saying how can this covenant be better if my child is now not in the covenant and they were before? So we know the children are still in the visible covenant though non-communicant until they have their own profession of discerning that the Lords body and blood is for them.
The distinction among the covenant people is the Supper, not the covenant mark, circ or bapt. (Sorry to digress, please bear with this, you see how this all ties together and must be there for clarity so we do not have the confusion in how we interpret as this thread manifests.)

We do not know who the elect are so we do not deal with people from the perspective of predestination. We deal with them from a point of human responsibility.

We acknowledge and know God is sovereign so it affects our belief, but we have to be careful to know how to use this. A major confusion for many who come into the reformed doctrines esp. from Arminianism is they are not clear on this, just as I wasn't, being an Arminian coming to this understanding.

So our application is: I pray, ask God for food and a job, then I go look for the job and work, to buy my food, then I thank God for giving me the food.
Did you see both in there? In their proper place. To mix these would be to wait for God to providentially send manna down to feed me.

So I am warranted to treat as believers those, who by birth into the covenant, or by credible profession enter, though they may not be elect.
This is a benefit or blessings of the covenant that those outside do not get.

No one, by this covenant language, is saying, I confirm that you are elect, because we do not deal with election this way. No need to. That is God's domain. I recognize it exists, and praise Him for it, but I speak from limited human responsibility. And to speak to the church by saying, "to the saints", or "brethren", is warranted covenant language and to be understood in covenant meaning by the hearers, who SHOULD understand this. Though some in the room may not be converted yet or elect at all.

But I have no such warrant to use covenant language with someone outside the covenant. I can't say, Christ died for you.
In fact in counseling professing believers I use extra care when trying to comfort or encourage them saying, you know Christ has paid for your sins and God can't punish you, if you have truly believed in Him. or I may say there is no need for guilt or worry if you are truly born again.

Now as an Arminian, one might understand Paul in a universalistic sense to be saying, Christ died for all of OUR sins, each and every one of you. And Christ died for all men to mean each and everyone of you.

But indeed to the covenant educated, Paul clearly says, Christ died for OUR sins, those of us in the covenant, those of us like me who believe, our sins. Clearly not, and in distinction to, what some want him to have said, your sins.

He did not say, your sins, he said our sins. He was not making himself a part of the worldly and heathen. He was holding himself apart form the world and part of the covenant believers. See how the Arminian sunglasses influence how we interpret??

In fact I can say to the person, I believe Christ died for my sins and I would like you to be able to have this confidence also, or have this faith or hope.

But not died for your sins. How does that help him?

Again and most emphatically, what would be the need?
To as many as received Him, and only those who received Him, he gave them to be sons of God. its limited language, not wide open; and further qualified by, "to those who believe".
And 1 Tim 4:10 who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.
NKJV meaning: the only savior in the world for all men of all races and nations, not just Jews, but really only of those who believe.


The gospel is not to believe Christ died for my sins anyway. It is to believe I am a sinner under the curse of the law, need to repent and believe in Christ. Believe what? well that is highly debated but according to our W. Confession it certainly is not that Christ died for my sins, because under the section on assurance of faith we are told that this certainty is NOT of the essence of saving faith and some may not have it until after waiting long and enduring many trials and see this faith so strong and clear and no longer doubt that Christ died for their sins. They may have a hope Christ died for their sins but they do not fully believe trustingly yet in this or they would be assured.

But even if you think one must believe Christ died for their sins to be saved,
that belief would be the reflex action of a regenerated person who may have just been born again by grace through the Spirit, who imparted faith, producing repentance and this belief; so they are in Christ and in the covenant. Though not formally recognized until approved by an elder.

Or else it would be a false profession and they are not saved.

So please, like Todd and so many others here have said, and clearly put, this not only could, but it has lead to great misunderstanding, false assurance, and a great part of the false gospel of the Arminian heresy so common today; many who having made that profession, live like the world, and fall away, (covenant breakers), bringing great disgrace to the name of Christ and the covenant church.

Leave the convincing that Christ died for them, to the work of the Holy Spirit!

In His service,

 

[Confessor]

I figured you'd say that, but let me ask you, what evidence do you persoanlly have of my repentance that goes beyond a profession of faith? [...] If they are to place faith in an atonement, how are they to do so, unless they first believe that atonement was accomplished for them? The knowledge of his atonement for us is supposed to give us something to believe, and the motivator to drive us to repent and believe, not vice-a-versa.

Still, though, I would say that I have evidence, as you have knowingly subscribed to a confession and discussed theology with others on the board, and you have treated many people graciously. Even if this is only a huge deception, well, I'm being deceived into thinking that you're redeemed. We don't want to invoke some Cartesian skepticism here.

As for telling people to believe, tell them "Christ died for the sins of all who believe in Him." I think that is pretty concise and encourages repentance.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

A number on the list have expressed above their preference for the phrase, "Jesus died for sinners." I've no objection to that phrase. However, when I make that statement on the heals of demonstrating to the audience to which I preach that they are all sinners (Rom. 3:10ff; 23), am I not implying by way of logical inference that in some sense Jesus died for them? That is, You are a sinner > Jesus died for sinners (the elect in one sense; all mankind in another sense) > Jesus died for you (in at least a general sense).

It seems more logical to me to put it this way: You are a sinner in need of salvation > Jesus died for all who believe they are sinners in need of salvation > Jesus died for you if you believe you are a sinner in need of salvation.

This way you avoid implying to the unrepentant that in some sense Jesus died for them.

If Jesus wanted to send the message that he died 'in some way' for all, why would he say to the Pharisees in Matt 9:13, "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Ken,

I appreciate your input and concern that we not compromise the doctrine of limited atonement or poorly communicate the gospel. I want to assure you that my motive for initially raising the question is not related to any kind of latent Arminianism (at least I hope not), unprincipled sentimentalism or willingness to compromise biblical truth. I'm only trying to do justice to all the statements of Scripture related to Christ's work and its reference to sinners.

As I noted above, 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 might provide warrant for using the phraseology "Christ died for our sins" when speaking with unconverted men. If so, then Paul obviously has in that immediate context a sense in view other than "Christ efficaciously made satisfaction for our sins." If he actually said to his audience of unconverted Greeks, "Christ died for our sins," he must have meant something more general like, "Christ died for the benefit of us sinners, viz., so that we, if we receive this good news, might be saved."

In 1 Timothy 4:10, Paul describes "the living God" as "the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." In this passage, God is obviously not a "Savior" to both groups designated in the same sense. Yet, Paul did not allow his "particularism" to prevent him from predicating to God some kind of Saviorhood vis-a-vis all human beings. Yes, we must be quick to qualify what he meant lest the unbeliever misunderstand. That does not mean, however, that we are forbidden from using soteriological terminology in a general, non-efficacious sense in relation to unbelievers, does it? Isn't it reasonable to assume that when the unbeliever hears us offer Christ's sacrifice to them as the all-sufficient atonement "for your sin," he'll be intelligent enough to catch the qualifier--"if you believe"?

Your servant,

 

[cih1355]

There can be some unwanted consequences of saying, "Jesus was actually punished for each and everyone one of your sins.", to someone who does not profess to be a Christian. He could say, "Thank you for letting me know that Jesus was punished for me. I'm glad to hear that I will not be punished in hell." I could imagine an Arminian saying to him, "Wait a minute. You have to believe in Jesus in order to be saved. You don't automatically go to heaven just because of the fact that Jesus was punished for you." If the unbeliever is astute and clearly understands the penal substitutionary view of Christ's atonement, then he would say, "Didn't you say that Jesus was actually punished for all of the sins of every single person who has ever lived on earth? If Jesus was actually punished for me, why would I go to hell? What would I get punished for?". Have you ever heard of a scenario like this that has actually happened?

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

This is the weakness for the Baptist who think they should only baptize true believers. They can't. They can't know who is elect. So we do not baptize only believers, we baptize those who make a profession and become members of the visible covenant. So what we see is one reason everyone should be a presbyterian and hold to covenant theology and not be modern dispensationals.

What? As a Baptist pastor, my warrant for baptizing someone is based not on my privy to inside information regarding God's decree. I baptized those who make a credible profession of faith in Christ, for such and only such are legally warranted to be members of the visible New Covenant family of God.

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the [legal] right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13).
​

Nothing about the children of believers in this text. Indeed, this text contravenes role of blood-ties, which served as warrant for membership in the visible Old Covenant community.

But, I confess, this is off-topic

 

[Confessor]

This is the weakness for the Baptist who think they should only baptize true believers. They can't. They can't know who is elect. So we do not baptize only believers, we baptize those who make a profession and become members of the visible covenant. So what we see is one reason everyone should be a presbyterian and hold to covenant theology and not be modern dispensationals.

What? As a Baptist pastor, my warrant for baptizing someone is based not on my privy to inside information regarding God's decree. I baptized those who make a credible profession of faith in Christ, for such and only such are legally warranted to be members of the visible New Covenant family of God.

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the [legal] right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13).
​

Nothing about the children of believers in this text. Indeed, this text contravenes role of blood-ties, which served as warrant for membership in the visible Old Covenant community.

But, I confess, this is off-topic

The counter-argument to this is that a profession of faith does not necessarily equate a true belief, and thus choosing to baptize only professors is fallible.

Still

 

[KMK]

Isn't it reasonable to assume that when the unbeliever hears us offer Christ's sacrifice to them as the all-sufficient atonement "for your sin," he'll be intelligent enough to catch the qualifier--"if you believe"?

Your servant,

Perhaps, but how hard is it to just add the qualifier?

I have no problem with what you are saying in theory, and have no doubt you are justified in your exegesis. However, from a pastoral perspective, living in the world in which we live, facing the strongholds that we face, I avoid the statement, "Christ died for you," when speaking to the unbeliever because I fear it might do more harm than good. Consider how much time and space has been dedicated to qualifying the statement here in this thread. It seems like the statement creates more problems than it solves.

 

[charliejunfan]

I tell people that if they have faith in Christ alone and hate more and more sin to the end of their lives then that means that He chose them and died for them to save them, and also that they cannot believe what I say unless the Holy Spirit first gives them new birth.

 

[toddpedlar]

Can I ask why you would tell an unconverted person this? Dissembling is a sin and I simply cannot understand why anyone would advocate its practice, especially in bringing Christ to people who do not know Him - but if I have heard your reasoning on this correctly, that is exactly what you're advocating.

You have stated that when you say to this unconverted person "Christ died for your sins", you understand that you cannot be saying for certain that Christ's death procured the person's salvation. You can only mean that at the very least he procured some benefits for this person, but maybe he in fact died to purchase salvation.

When a person hears this, what will he hear? I cannot think other than he will hear "Christ died to pay the penalty for your sins and thereby procure your salvation."

Why would you EVER say something that will almost certainly be misunderstood?

If the person hears this, he may very well say "Good, then what reason is there that I have to believe in Him and submit to Him as Lord? Given that He died to cover my sins, I can happily go on in my sin and I'll go to heaven when I die." What POSSIBLE motivation would telling a person this give him to come to faith? If he does, he will almost certainly embrace a faith wherein he views his act of faith as casting the winning vote in some sort of God vs. Satan election. You told him that Christ died for Him - he understood that to mean that his sins were covered, but only if he made Christ's payment good by believing. This is an Arminian half-truth.

Why be so deliberately obscurantist in evangelism? Why not give the person the truth? You're surely not going to win someone over by giving him a half-truth. The gospel is not that Christ surely died for that person's sins - the gospel is that Christ laid down His life for those who are His sheep, those who entrust themselves to Him. I honestly think telling an unconverted person something that will undoubtedly be misunderstood, that you then have to, if you are willing to renege on your original dissemblance and explain truthfully, is unbecoming of a Christian.

Todd,

Are you asking me this on the basis of my post or somebody else?

I'm sorry I didn't quote something from Bob's posts, but I guess I thought the person I was questioning was clear. I was asking why anyone would, in bearing witness to Christ, use such language as "Christ died for your sins". I was addressing Bob's statement that (as I read him) he would in fact say this, knowing that he meant something different by "Christ died for your sins" than most would hear when told that. My point was that this is nothing more than dissembling, obscurantism, or in other words, an example of deceitful speech.

Todd

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

I'm sorry I didn't quote something from Bob's posts, but I guess I thought the person I was questioning was clear. I was asking why anyone would, in bearing witness to Christ, use such language as "Christ died for your sins". I was addressing Bob's statement that (as I read him) he would in fact say this, knowing that he meant something different by "Christ died for your sins" than most would hear when told that. My point was that this is nothing more than dissembling, obscurantism, or in other words, an example of deceitful speech.

Todd,

I appreciate your concern that we be clear and accurate in our presentation of the gospel. I have affirmed a number of times my commitment to a particular design of Christ's atonement. Nevertheless, I have attempted to provide NT examples in which the apostle Paul describes "the living God" as "the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe" (1 Tim. 4:10). In this passage, God is obviously not a "Savior" to both groups designated in the same sense. Yet, Paul did not allow his "particularism" to prevent him from predicating to God some kind of Saviorhood vis-a-vis all human beings. Would you accuse Paul of "dissembling, obscurantism, or ... deceitful speech" because he dares to describe God as (in some sense) a Savior of all men?

Moreover, I noted that in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 we might have warrant for using the phraseology "Christ died for our sins" when speaking with unconverted men. If so, then Paul obviously has in that immediate context a sense in view other than "Christ efficaciously made satisfaction for our sins." If he actually said to his audience of unconverted Greeks, "Christ died for our sins," he must have meant something more general like, "Christ died for the benefit of us sinners so that we, if we receive this good news, might be saved." Once again, if the original gospel Paul preached to the Corinthians when they were yet unconverted included the phrase, "Christ died for out sins" (which the grammar and context allows), would you accuse Paul of "dissembling, obscurantism, or ... deceitful speech"?

In John 3:16 teaches us that "God so loved the world that he sent his only Son in order than whoever (from that mass of humanity toward which God demonstrated his love) believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." I have argued elsewhere that "world" in this context is probably referring to fallen humanity (which best fits John's usage of kosmos, see John 1:10; 7:7; 8:12, 23, 26; 9:5; 12:31, 46, 47; 17:6, 9, 14, 21, 23) and not to "the world of the elect." Of course, John, like the other Scripture writers, believed in an efficacious atonement that had special reference to the elect (see John 17:9). But he did not seem to have a problem speaking of Christ's earthly ministry as a display of God's benevolent love and salvific posture towards all fallen men in general.

Do unconverted men distort such truths as God's general love for fallen humanity and Christ's free offer and a gospel of free grace unto their own distruction? Yes. But shall we prohibit the use of apostolic language just because it might be misinterpreted? Shall we attempt to "improve" on certain statements in the NT because they (on the surface) don't sit comfortably with our system? Don't mistake me. I'm not suggesting that there are real contradictions in the NT or that the passages to which I've alluded above in any way undermine the NT witness in favor of a particular design behind Christ's atoning mission to earth. I'm only suggesting that language is sometimes more flexible than those who like everything in "black-and-white" tidy compartments may prefer. If the Greek term agape could on the one hand be used for the highest form of love (John 3:16, 35) and on the other hand be used for the most despicable form of lust (2 Sam. 13:1, 4), then we must resist the tempation to be more precise or fastitidous than Scripture. Let every statement be understood and interpreted in its context--not by some wooden (unsound) linguistic methodology that only allows for one possible meaning.

Humbly yours,

 

[Theognome]

I'm sorry I didn't quote something from Bob's posts, but I guess I thought the person I was questioning was clear. I was asking why anyone would, in bearing witness to Christ, use such language as "Christ died for your sins". I was addressing Bob's statement that (as I read him) he would in fact say this, knowing that he meant something different by "Christ died for your sins" than most would hear when told that. My point was that this is nothing more than dissembling, obscurantism, or in other words, an example of deceitful speech.

Todd,

I appreciate your concern that we be clear and accurate in our presentation of the gospel. I have affirmed a number of times my commitment to a particular design of Christ's atonement. Nevertheless, I have attempted to provide NT examples in which the apostle Paul describes "the living God" as "the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe" (1 Tim. 4:10). In this passage, God is obviously not a "Savior" to both groups designated in the same sense. Yet, Paul did not allow his "particularism" to prevent him from predicating to God some kind of Saviorhood vis-a-vis all human beings. Would you accuse Paul of "dissembling, obscurantism, or ... deceitful speech" because he dares to describe God as (in some sense) a Savior of all men?

Moreover, I noted that in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 we might have warrant for using the phraseology "Christ died for our sins" when speaking with unconverted men. If so, then Paul obviously has in that immediate context a sense in view other than "Christ efficaciously made satisfaction for our sins." If he actually said to his audience of unconverted Greeks, "Christ died for our sins," he must have meant something more general like, "Christ died for the benefit of us sinners so that we, if we receive this good news, might be saved." Once again, if the original gospel Paul preached to the Corinthians when they were yet unconverted included the phrase, "Christ died for out sins" (which the grammar and context allows), would you accuse Paul of "dissembling, obscurantism, or ... deceitful speech"?

In John 3:16 teaches us that "God so loved the world that he sent his only Son in order than whoever (from that mass of humanity toward which God demonstrated his love) believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." I have argued elsewhere that "world" in this context is probably referring to fallen humanity (which best fits John's usage of kosmos, see John 1:10; 7:7; 8:12, 23, 26; 9:5; 12:31, 46, 47; 17:6, 9, 14, 21, 23) and not to "the world of the elect." Of course, John, like the other Scripture writers, believed in an efficacious atonement that had special reference to the elect (see John 17:9). But he did not seem to have a problem speaking of Christ's earthly ministry as a display of God's benevolent love and salvific posture towards all fallen men in general.

Do unconverted men distort such truths as God's general love for fallen humanity and Christ's free offer and a gospel of free grace unto their own distruction? Yes. But shall we prohibit the use of apostolic language just because it might be misinterpreted? Shall we attempt to "improve" on certain statements in the NT because they (on the surface) don't sit comfortably with our system? Don't mistake me. I'm not suggesting that there are real contradictions in the NT or that the passages to which I've alluded above in any way undermine the NT witness in favor of a particular design behind Christ's atoning mission to earth. I'm only suggesting that language is sometimes more flexible than those who like everything in "black-and-white" tidy compartments may prefer. If the Greek term agape could on the one hand be used for the highest form of love (John 3:16, 35) and on the other hand be used for the most despicable form of lust (2 Sam. 13:1, 4), then we must resist the tempation to be more precise or fastitidous than Scripture. Let every statement be understood and interpreted in its context--not by some wooden (unsound) linguistic methodology that only allows for one possible meaning.

Humbly yours,

I concur that the strict linguistic argument is not as sound as it appears for an exclusion of the OP phrase in question in a modern context. In all of the texts you mentioned above (1 Cor. 15:1-3, John 3:16 and 1 Tim. 4:10) we find a caveat which gives clarity to the intention within the text. These caveats show the intention within the context within the verses given, revealing the desire of God for salvation versus actual regeneration. Thus the differentiation of what is common and what is special is clear.

Theognome

 

[DonP]

This is the weakness for the Baptist who think they should only baptize true believers. They can't. They can't know who is elect. So we do not baptize only believers, we baptize those who make a profession and become members of the visible covenant. So what we see is one reason everyone should be a presbyterian and hold to covenant theology and not be modern dispensationals.

What? As a Baptist pastor, my warrant for baptizing someone is based not on my privy to inside information regarding God's decree. I baptized those who make a credible profession of faith in Christ, for such and only such are legally warranted to be members of the visible New Covenant family of God.

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the [legal] right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13).
​

Nothing about the children of believers in this text. Indeed, this text contravenes role of blood-ties, which served as warrant for membership in the visible Old Covenant community.

But, I confess, this is off-topic

Bob, the entire teaching is not all in one verse. I see nothing there about immersing people under water for receiving either.

Don't you agree the moms would have complained if the children weren't still in the covenant? And Paul would have had to explain why what you say happened did? Why God dropped children out of the covenant?
This would have been a radical change.
The promises we inherit are to believers AND THEIR SEED.
But we can discuss this in another thread.

What we need to see here is why would you want to and what is the need to say Jesus died for you.

Please answer this. Why do you feel the need to say this instead of a more accurate and truthful statement. Esp since IT IS NEVER EVER SAID THAT WAY IN SCRIPTURE. Repent and believe, Believe and be baptized, turn from idols to serve the living God. etc. But never receive Jesus, decide for Christ, accept Jesus as your personal savior, Ask Jesus into your heart, etc. these are all lay perversions of the gospel message due to weak pastoral oversight and instruction and discipline.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

What we need to see here is why would you want to and what is the need to say Jesus died for you.

Please answer this. Why do you feel the need to say this instead of a more accurate and truthful statement. Esp since IT IS NEVER EVER SAID THAT WAY IN SCRIPTURE. Repent and believe, Believe and be baptized, turn from idols to serve the living God. etc. But never receive Jesus, decide for Christ, accept Jesus as your personal savior, Ask Jesus into your heart, etc. these are all lay perversions of the gospel message due to weak pastoral oversight and instruction and discipline.

Don,

First, I appreciate your desire to use Scriptural language when evangelizing. Of course, those of us somewhat conversant in Puritan literature are aware that the Puritans and their successors did not follow this rule to the letter. They often spoke of "closing with Christ." Where is that found in the Bible?

Second, you haven't addressed my exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:1-3. At the risk of repetition ad nauseam, let me repeat what the text appears to says. Paul describes the gospel that he had received (from Christ, the Scriptures, and the other apostles) and preached to the Corinthians during his initial evangelistic labors among them in the following terms: “For I delivered (aorist) to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures [emphasis added]” (1 Cor. 15:3). Note carefully that, according to verse 1, these words constituted the good news that the Corinthians initially “received” (aorist) and upon which, following their conversion, they “had taken their stand” (perfect). So it would seem, at least from a prima facie reading of this text, that Paul’s gospel presentation to unconverted Greeks included the phrase, “Christ died for our sins.”

Here we have to make an exegetical decision. Were the words Paul used to describe the gospel he had preached among the (then unconverted) Corinthians ipsissima verba (the very words) or ipsissima vox (the basic message). If the latter, then we might argue that Paul added the phrase "for our sins" as a dictum ex eventu (a saying after the event). That seems unlikely, however, since Paul uses the Greek hoti in order to introduce something akin to quotation. Consequently, what Paul describes in verse 3b and following is the very message Paul had preached to them when first among them and which they had received.

If this exegesis is correct, then the gospel Paul preached included the phrase, "Christ died for our sins." We may take that in one of two ways: (1) Paul and his associates stuck their index finger in their own breasts when uttering that phrase, viz., we want you Corinthians to know that Jesus died for "us," that is, for Paul and company, not necessarily for you because we don't know if you're one of the elect. Or (2) Paul and his associates were identifying with the Corinthians as part of that sinful mass of humanity for whom Christ's death is sufficient to save contingent on faith. That is, "Christ died for the benefit of us sinners so that we, if we receive this good news, might be saved." This, I submit to you, is not to far removed from saying in a general way, "You're a sinner. Christ died for such people as you. His atonement will satisfy God's justice and pacify God's wrath and secure God's pardon if you will receive his offer of salvation," which, in my mind, is a kind of longhand for "Christ died for your sins."

So I don't share your certainty that "IT IS NEVER EVER SAID THAT WAY IN SCRIPTURE." Moreover, you seem to be quite convinced that phraseology like "receive Jesus," "decide for Christ," "accept Jesus as your personal savior," "ask Jesus into your heart," are nothing more than "lay perversions of the gospel message due to weak pastoral oversight and instruction and discipline." Would you say the same about the phrase "close with Christ," used by some of the Puritans and their successors? (see the PB thread on this phrase) It might interest you to know that none of the phrases you list such as "repent and believe," "relieve and be baptized," or "turn from idols to serve the living God" are found once in the Bible, at least in the most literal sense. That's because the Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, not in English. The phrases you list are merely translations of the original.

Moreover, the Bible does in fact describe saving faith in terms of "receiving [lambano; paralambano]" Christ not only in the passage we've been discussing (1 Cor. 15:1) but in other texts:

ESV Matthew 10:14 And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town.

ESV Mark 10:15 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."

ESV John 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

ESV John 12:48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.
​

There are more verses that could be cited. But these should suffice to demonstrate that "receiving Christ" is synonymous with "believing Christ." I would also submit to you that calling on sinners to "make a decision for Christ" is not at all unbiblical. I believe it finds justification from such texts as follows:

ESV Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live,

ESV Psalm 119:30 I have chosen the way of faithfulness; I set your rules before me.
​

ESV Psalm 119:173 Let your hand be ready to help me, for I have chosen your precepts.

ESV Proverbs 1:29 Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the LORD,

ESV Isaiah 56:4 For thus says the LORD: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant,
​

Interestingly, the English "choose" in these passages most commonly translates the same Hebrew term bahar used for God's choosing a people for his name. In any case, these passages clearly call people to make a choice, i.e., a decision or a commitment.

I confess that the phrase, "Ask Jesus in your heart," does not find a close biblical equivalent and may sound somewhat sentimental in the context of easy-believism. Nevertheless, I don't believe we should adopt the position that argues we must only use the precise vocabulary of Scripture. (1) that isn't possible since we'd have to speak Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, (2) it's not wrong to paraphrase Scripture--note how Matthew takes great liberty with Isaiah 42:1-4 (Matt. 12:17-20). And (3) "ask Jesus into your heart," if properly explained and qualified, may be a way of stressing the need for an inward change (regeneration) and embrace of Christ's lordship, i.e., if you would receive Christ, he would have your whole heart and life.

In summary, I appreciate your zeal for maintaining an accurate and biblical communication of the gospel. I share that zeal. I have not, however, been convinced by your arguments (1) that any use of the phrase "Christ died for our (or your) sins" when speaking to unconverted people is in all cases unbiblical and wrong, and (2) that the use of such phrases as "receive Christ" or "decide for Christ" or "ask Christ into your heart" are of necessity lay perversions (for all we know, these phrases may have been coined by preachers!). It all depends on what one means when he uses them. If properly explained, these expressions may represent aspects of a biblical call to repent and believe the gospel.

Humbly yours,

 

[cih1355]

I confess that the phrase, "Ask Jesus in your heart," does not find a close biblical equivalent and may sound somewhat sentimental in the context of easy-believism. Nevertheless, I don't believe we should adopt the position that argues we must only use the precise vocabulary of Scripture. (1) that isn't possible since we'd have to speak Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, (2) it's not wrong to paraphrase Scripture--note how Matthew takes great liberty with Isaiah 42:1-4 (Matt. 12:17-20). And (3) "ask Jesus into your heart," if properly explained and qualified, may be a way of stressing the need for an inward change (regeneration) and embrace of Christ's lordship, i.e., if you would receive Christ, he would have your whole heart and life.

The phrase, "Ask Jesus in your heart", is a vague expression. It doesn't clearly communicate what it means to believe in Jesus. I think it is better to say, "Rely or depend upon Christ alone for your salvation from sin", or "Trust in Christ alone for your salvation from sin". To believe in Christ means to trust, rely on, or to depend upon Christ.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

The phrase, "Ask Jesus in your heart", is a vague expression. It doesn't clearly communicate what it means to believe in Jesus. I think it is better to say, "Rely or depend upon Christ alone for your salvation from sin", or "Trust in Christ alone for your salvation from sin". To believe in Christ means to trust, rely on, or to depend upon Christ.

What about the Puritan phrase, "Close with Christ"? Is that less vague and more clear? Just curious to know if you think they made the same mistake moderns make, viz., obscuring the gospel invitation with vague extra-biblical terminology.

 

[cih1355]

The phrase, "Ask Jesus in your heart", is a vague expression. It doesn't clearly communicate what it means to believe in Jesus. I think it is better to say, "Rely or depend upon Christ alone for your salvation from sin", or "Trust in Christ alone for your salvation from sin". To believe in Christ means to trust, rely on, or to depend upon Christ.

What about the Puritan phrase, "Close with Christ"? Is that less vague and more clear? Just curious to know if you think they made the same mistake moderns make, viz., obscuring the gospel invitation with vague extra-biblical terminology.

I think that the phrase is less vague and more clear. To close with Christ means to join or unite with Christ by faith. The word, "close", can mean "join" or "unite".

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

What about the Puritan phrase, "Close with Christ"? Is that less vague and more clear? Just curious to know if you think they made the same mistake moderns make, viz., obscuring the gospel invitation with vague extra-biblical terminology.

I think that the phrase is less vague and more clear. To close with Christ means to join or unite with Christ by faith. The word, "close", can mean "join" or "unite".

Curt,

Are we straining at gnats and swallowing camels? "Closing with Christ" meant to the Puritans and their successors the equivalent of "accepting" or "receiving" Christ as Lord and Savior. Jonathan Edwards writes,

[Natural] hearts do not close with Christ, but are averse to him.... They are not willing to take Christ as he is; they would fain divide him. There are some things in him that they like, and others that they greatly dislike; but consider him as he is, and he is offered to them in the gospel, and they are not willing to accept Christ.
​

William Guthrie:

Believing on Christ must be personal; a man himself and in his own proper person must close with Christ Jesus-"˜The just shall live by his faith.´ (Hab. 2:4.) This says, that it will not suffice for a man´s safety and relief, that he is in covenant with God as a born member of the visible church, by virtue of the parent´s subjection to God´s ordinances: neither will it suffice that the person had the initiating seal of baptism added, and that he then virtually engaged to seek salvation by Christ´s blood, as all infants do: neither does it suffice that men are come of believing parents; their faith will not instate their children into a right to the spiritual blessings of the covenant; neither will it suffice that parents did, in some respects, engage for their children, and give them away unto God: all these things do not avail. The children of the kingdom and of godly predecessors are cast out. Unless a man in his own person have faith in Christ Jesus, and with his own heart approve and acquiesce in that device of saving sinners, he cannot be saved. I grant, this faith is given unto him by Christ; but certain it is, that it must be personal.
​

According to these citations, "closing with Christ" is more akin to "receiving" or "accepting" Christ in an act of faith, not "joining" Christ or "uniting oneself to" Christ. Indeed, it falls into the category of a personal "decision."

Does the NT ever use the language of "joining" or "uniting ourselves to" Christ? It does use terminology like "joining" for church membership (Acts 5:13; 9:26). It does teach "union with Christ," which is ultimately something God does for us not something we're called to do--as least in a technical sense (as far as I know).

In all honesty, I feel no great burden to defend the phrase, "Accept Jesus into your heart." I think it is subject to misunderstanding and should only be used when what is meant is properly explained. The same holds true with biblical vocabulary like "receive Christ," "trust Christ," "believe in Christ," etc. I live in the Bible-belt of America where even plain biblical language is misinterpreted by the natural man. Indeed, I lived the first 22 years of my life as a Roman Catholic who "believed in Christ" (and I really did believe in a historical Jesus) but was unconverted and didn't understand the full meaning of the phrase "believe in Christ" until an evangelical pastor offered me a fuller explanation. Hence, like the apostles, we have to explain what we mean.

On a related note, how about this phrase: "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." I find it amusing that some Calvinists find language like "receive Christ" or "accept Christ" too synergistic and man-centered (I'm not accusing you of this.) Yet, Peter calls for a decision. He uses the imperative passive of sozo, meaning, "Be saved from [the fate] this corrupt generation by means of repenting and turning to Christ" (Acts 2:38-40). Of course sinners cannot "turn" from their sin and "receive" Christ except the Spirit draw them. But it's our responsibility to call on sinners to act. Whether we use the precise vocabulary of Scripture (translated into our language, of course) or whether we use extra-biblical phrases like "close with Christ," we will most likely need to give further explanation.

Your servant,