"THE ALTAR CALL"
by Kenny Mann (guest writer)
by Kenny Mann (guest writer)
The church I grew up in always gave an “altar call” at the end of the service. Sometimes it was called, the “invitation.” It’s a time at the end of the service where the pastor asks anyone who wants to receive Christ, or pray about something, to come forward to pray. Some churches don’t have this practice, and simply end the service with a hymn and prayer.
Some people in evangelical circles object to having an altar call, while others insist on it. In my experience, it’s usually the more “Calvinistic” people who object. Why? They say because the altar call can involve a lot of emotionalism, and saying the “Sinner’s Prayer” cannot save you. They believe the pastor manipulates people into saying a prayer, and POOF, they are “saved.” On the other side, the less calvinistic people would say that they are encouraging people who come, to confess with their mouth in front of witnesses, that they accept Christ. The debate is rooted in how you see the Gospel. If you read my article entitled “DOES GOD FIND US, OR DO WE FIND GOD”, it will help you understand more about the theology of this question.
When I was doing some soul searching about these issues, I knew there was some truth to both sides. Too many times we get caught up in the numbers game, and think if we can get someone to repeat a prayer, that they are saved. On the other hand, admitting you’re a sinner and in need of saving needs to be expressed in some way. But repeating a prayer after someone does not save you, I don’t believe. The action that has taken place in the heart of one who has had their eyes opened to how much God loves them, and feels broken and sorrowful that they caused the Son of God to be crucified on their behalf is what saved them. They may make a public confession of faith right then, or it may not come til much later. Both sides in this debate have a point. On the one hand, too many times we work up emotions to get a response. On the other hand though, if someone truly has the light turned on about what Jesus did for them, it HAS to be an emotional event. So I am going to lean in favor of the altar call. I am also going to say that saying the “Sinner’s Prayer” is fine—as long as it’s explained that saying those word will not save you, any more than any other “good” work.
As I was pondering this issue several years ago, I would lay in the bed imagining an altar call. It gradually grew in scope to to include the story of the Prodigal Son. (Luke 15:11-32) When was the son forgiven? Well he was forgiven before he even left the foreign land he was living in, the "pigsty." When did that forgiveness change him? It changed him the moment he got up to GO home. His father had issued the “invitation” before the son ever came back—the scripture says the father “looked for him afar off.” That means the father was looking for him with anticipation and with expectancy.
As I envisioned this story, I thought about what I would do if I were giving an altar call. I imagined it was MY son walking down the aisle. As he got near to me, tears were streaming down his face. The question he asked would be the best sinner’s prayer that could be said. He looked at me and said, Do you think God will take somebody like me?” My response was “He already has.”
My Comments
This has been a topic that my dear friend, Bob L. Ross of Pilgrim Publications, has been interested in for many years. Though Calvinistic in doctrine, he has fought those Calvinists who have gone overboard in their denunciations of the "altar call." He has a good defense of the practice in an Internet article titled "The Altar Call - CONVERTS FREQUENTLY MADE IN RELATION TO PUBLIC INVITATIONS." (see here) Here are some excerpts from that article:
Perhaps the most popular "whipping boy" of the Reformed Hybrid Calvinist camp of theology is the "altar call" or the "public invitation."
The "Pryomaniacs" website has opened up for its readership to suggest a "better idea," and that despite the fact that it might safely be presumed that 9 of every 10 who comment on that blog were probably converted in relation to an altar call or public invitation.
I have often read items critical of public invitations and in most cases they were written by persons whose own conversions were related to public invitations. Some, after their "indoctrination" into the Hybrid Calvinism of the Reformed camp, later say they were saved "despite" the invitation.
Oh, well, it is no marvel that it has been observed that a number of the anti-invitation churches fail to evangelize by any method and thus fail to make converts, their memberships dwindled, and some of them have even closed their doors. They didn't seem to have a "better idea" on how to invite lost men and women to come to Christ and confess Him as Lord and Saviour.
Some have utilized other methodology in soliciting professions of faith, such as the "Invitation to the Pastor's Office," which was the practice of the late Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones at Westminster Chapel in London.
I have written several articles in which I think I have just about replied to every conceivable objection to public invitations, and you can find a number of these articles at this link:
Select Writings of Bob L. Ross (HERE)
Among my writings are some articles in reply to Pedobaptist Ian Murray, who has written against the use of public invitations, and is responsible for much of the anti-invitation palabber of the current age. Others basically simply repeat Murray's objections.
I also wrote a reply to Flounders' Founder Ernest Reisinger's criticisms. Ernest himself is said to have prayed "The Sinner's Prayer" and afterwards professed faith during an invitation in an "Arminian" Salvation Army meeting. His experience is somewhat typical of how many, if not most, of the anti-invitationists were converted. It seems that most of our current crop of alleged "Calvinists," like Reisinger, were brought to Christ under alleged "Arminian ministries" which used "Arminian methods," and afterwards they adopted the "Reformed" theology which made it necessary for them to somehow "explain" why those methods were wrong and they "got saved in spite" of the "Arminian methods."
If it weren't for the alleged "Arminians" bringing in the "elect," we wonder how they would be brought into the fold. It has been my observation for over 50 years that most of the "Calvinists" I have known testify that they were evangelized and brought to profess faith by those whom they were later pleased to identify as "Arminian."
Also, see brother Ross's other article "Are Altar Calls Justified by Founders' Founder, Ernest Reisinger?" (see here) He also has some good articles on this topic at his web site referred to above.
I have written on this subject extensively myself. For instance, see the posting "Hardshells & Mission Opposition IV" (see here) See also the posting "Old Baptist Evangelistic Methods" (see here) in which I show how the first old Baptists of the Kehukee Association practiced the altar call.
So, I agree with what brother Kenny has written. There are extremes on most sides of an issue. Today's Hardshells give only one kind of invitation. At the end of the sermon they say something like "the doors of the church are open for the reception of members." That's it! Further, when a person responds, they rarely question the person about their experience, something that makes them different from their forefathers. Yes, some like the famous Finney, use salesman type tactics, "high pressure" methods. These are extremes. My own advice is to follow my man Spurgeon!
This has been a topic that my dear friend, Bob L. Ross of Pilgrim Publications, has been interested in for many years. Though Calvinistic in doctrine, he has fought those Calvinists who have gone overboard in their denunciations of the "altar call." He has a good defense of the practice in an Internet article titled "The Altar Call - CONVERTS FREQUENTLY MADE IN RELATION TO PUBLIC INVITATIONS." (see here) Here are some excerpts from that article:
Perhaps the most popular "whipping boy" of the Reformed Hybrid Calvinist camp of theology is the "altar call" or the "public invitation."
The "Pryomaniacs" website has opened up for its readership to suggest a "better idea," and that despite the fact that it might safely be presumed that 9 of every 10 who comment on that blog were probably converted in relation to an altar call or public invitation.
I have often read items critical of public invitations and in most cases they were written by persons whose own conversions were related to public invitations. Some, after their "indoctrination" into the Hybrid Calvinism of the Reformed camp, later say they were saved "despite" the invitation.
Oh, well, it is no marvel that it has been observed that a number of the anti-invitation churches fail to evangelize by any method and thus fail to make converts, their memberships dwindled, and some of them have even closed their doors. They didn't seem to have a "better idea" on how to invite lost men and women to come to Christ and confess Him as Lord and Saviour.
Some have utilized other methodology in soliciting professions of faith, such as the "Invitation to the Pastor's Office," which was the practice of the late Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones at Westminster Chapel in London.
I have written several articles in which I think I have just about replied to every conceivable objection to public invitations, and you can find a number of these articles at this link:
Select Writings of Bob L. Ross (HERE)
Among my writings are some articles in reply to Pedobaptist Ian Murray, who has written against the use of public invitations, and is responsible for much of the anti-invitation palabber of the current age. Others basically simply repeat Murray's objections.
I also wrote a reply to Flounders' Founder Ernest Reisinger's criticisms. Ernest himself is said to have prayed "The Sinner's Prayer" and afterwards professed faith during an invitation in an "Arminian" Salvation Army meeting. His experience is somewhat typical of how many, if not most, of the anti-invitationists were converted. It seems that most of our current crop of alleged "Calvinists," like Reisinger, were brought to Christ under alleged "Arminian ministries" which used "Arminian methods," and afterwards they adopted the "Reformed" theology which made it necessary for them to somehow "explain" why those methods were wrong and they "got saved in spite" of the "Arminian methods."
If it weren't for the alleged "Arminians" bringing in the "elect," we wonder how they would be brought into the fold. It has been my observation for over 50 years that most of the "Calvinists" I have known testify that they were evangelized and brought to profess faith by those whom they were later pleased to identify as "Arminian."
Also, see brother Ross's other article "Are Altar Calls Justified by Founders' Founder, Ernest Reisinger?" (see here) He also has some good articles on this topic at his web site referred to above.
I have written on this subject extensively myself. For instance, see the posting "Hardshells & Mission Opposition IV" (see here) See also the posting "Old Baptist Evangelistic Methods" (see here) in which I show how the first old Baptists of the Kehukee Association practiced the altar call.
So, I agree with what brother Kenny has written. There are extremes on most sides of an issue. Today's Hardshells give only one kind of invitation. At the end of the sermon they say something like "the doors of the church are open for the reception of members." That's it! Further, when a person responds, they rarely question the person about their experience, something that makes them different from their forefathers. Yes, some like the famous Finney, use salesman type tactics, "high pressure" methods. These are extremes. My own advice is to follow my man Spurgeon!
No comments:
Post a Comment