Altar Calls?

The altar call is not without any scriptural foundation. "Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven." Matthew 10:32-33. True enough, it is not spelled out in the N.T. but neither are many other elements of worship. God doesn't expect us to be mindless robots, never going beyond what is printed in the pages of scripture. He wants us to use our ingenuity to accomplish His purpose in saving souls.

Now, I guess we have completely derailed this thread whose topic is history. As for the O.P., the altar call is a uniquely American invention. It took roots in the Great Awakening in America in the early 1800's. Therefore it did not exist prior to the Reformation.

 

I've given you my thoughts, and your response has been to be infantile and argumentative. That suggests you don't want to just know peoples' thoughts on the topic.

 

So, are we all agreed that the altar call or invitation is of fairly recent vintage in the scheme of things? At least the American version.

That raises the question: Why was this method not used among Christians for 1,800 years anywhere in the world? And even in America, it was not used for 200 years after the Pilgrims arrived here. Wonder why not?

If there is a scriptural basis for the modern invitation, why did Christians ignore the scripture for so long?

I can tell you from personal experience that Romanian Baptists still do not do it. Are they wrong?

Just askin'.

 

Perhaps some of you are reading your Presbyterian Book of Church Order by mistake. It does look somewhat like a Bible, and I can see how you might get them mixed up.

Reformed Presbyterian Book of Church Order

 

Altar calls are rooted in revivalism. The Pilgrims were Puritans, and were not part of the revivalist movement. In fact, many Puritans considered the nearby Dutch Reformed settlers apostates for their beliefs and practices.

 

Just because they are not mandated doesn't make altar calls wrong. If it doesn't contradict the mandates of scripture, we're allowed to make some choices in how we do church. We choose between wine and grape juice for communion. We choose whether to have a piano, an organ, drums and guitars, or no instruments at all. We even make choices about the seating arrangements in a church. Some prefer the center aisle, yet others put pews in the center and have side aisles. You can come up with a theological reason for any of these things but it doesn't mean any of them are wrong. Most Southern Baptists agree that the altar call is consistent with Christ's command to make disciples and it is both handy and effective.

 

As I have stated before, the issue boils down to whether men are free to invent new elements of worship. Since the altar call is a modern invention, it assumes that men may do so. Historically, Baptists have not believed that we can just invent new elements of worship, until modern times. What does the Bible say about this?

1. God alone has the right to determine the terms on which sinners may approach him in worship and He exercises it (Gen. 4: 1-5; Ex. 20: 4-6).

2. The introduction of extra-biblical practices into worship will inevitably crowd out and undermine God's appointed worship (Matt. 15: 3, 8-9; 2 Kings 16: 10-18).

3. The Scriptures are sufficient to guide us in our worship and those who add to what God has commanded for worship are essentially calling the Scriptures' sufficiency into question without even realizing it (2 Tim. 3: 16-17).

4. The Bible explicitly condemns all worship that is not commanded by God (Lev. 10: 1-3; Duet. 4:2, 12: 29-32, 17:3; Josh.1:7, 23:6-8; Matt. 15:13; Colo. 2: 20-23). It is "will-worship."

(These points are developed in more detail in a booklet by Sam Waldron entitled The Regulative Principle of the Church. I would highly recommend it as a good short explanation of the concept.)

The burden of proof is on the person who says the practice is biblically sanctioned. Show from the Bible where God commands his people to have an element of worship in which they make an appeal for people to walk the isle and come to the front of the building while the people sing softly several verses of "Just as I Am?"


Blessings!

 

While it is common to appeal to Matt. 10: 32-33 as a justification of the altar call, the passage in context is dealing with the issue of persecution. Jesus is preparing his disciples for the soon persecution which they would personally face. It has NOTHING to do with an altar call in a worship service where people are invited to walk the isle and go to the front of the building while people sing.

Blessings!

 

The Presbyterians, as noted above, go way beyond not having an altar call. At the end of a service, there is not a hint about talking to someone about what the Holy Spirit is doing in your life. With all of its imperfections, I will take what is being called an altar call any day over the cold, lifeless, stoic way some denominations end their worship.

 

Then you need to fire up the alter.

The Matt passage once again fails to make your point as you take it out of context. No one asserts that scripture says this is a must.

That passage doe not say that alter calls or any form of invitation to Christ is wrong.

You use old Testament law which is not relevant as those requirements are no longer to be in practice and the NT passages does not condemn alter calls in any way shape or form. Again when you have forsaken electricity, pews, and hymnals let me know.

Show where it is wrong to have hymnals, choirs, pews, lights, or electricity. Unless you have forsaken these things as well you have contradicted yourself. God does not command us to sit in worship either. Do you stand while in church? God does not command us to wear clothes in worship. Do you attend church naked? Your assertions are just that silly.

 

I'd say that's a correct statement. And the simple answer is yes. Men are free to invent new elements of worship. We have been doing so for 2000+ years.

On the contrary, the burden of proof lies with the person who claims it's biblically condemned.

 

Dear Brother,

I don't think our discussion is profitable at this point. May I suggest that you research the differences between the "Elements" of worship and "Circumstances" of worship. Previously, I thought that perhaps you weren't carefully reading what I was posting, but your responses seem to indicate a fundamental lack of comprehension in the differences between Elements and Circumstances in worship. What I am saying is not silly. It is the historic belief of Baptists and other Bible believing Christians.

I have no desire to offend or insult you. If I have, again I apologize. You are a brother in Christ. May charity prevail even among differences.

Blessings!

 

I love these posts that open with expressions like "dear brother" and end in "blessings" or some other such phrase with the message in between basically being slash and burn.

My last post stands. People who come to this board with little or no experience or knowledge of the posters and are nothing but rude, contribute nothing. Your post is nothing but a bunch of technical mumbo jumbo (differences between elements and circumstances, who cares). People care about an outlet to share with others after the Lord has done something in their life. There is nothing Biblically wrong with it, and you are making a red herring out of something that is not there. It has its imperfections, which is what this thread is about.

It sounds to me like you need to find a time machine and apply for a job i the heirarchy of the Jewish worship establishment about 2000 years ago.

 

Your mistake is in the very point you make. If you want to personally place the act of walking down the isle (since you have made that a primary point) as an element of worship you of course may do so but it is not representative of what goes on in churches that have alter calls.

But it appears that we have differing definitions of what "worship" is. You see it as a momentary act while I see it as a lifestyle that encompasses all that we do as Christians(John 15:4). Whether I make an appeal on the street or in the corporate service it is all the very same thing. When I leave the church building I do not stop my worship of God but I do it from the church doors to wherever I go next. Once I arrive I do it there as well. Worship is a lifestyle and not a momentary act. Those who fail to live this way are in direct disobedience to God(John 15:6).

You focus on the physical act of walking down an isle. That is simply a change in geography. And you rail against the making of an appeal. Did Paul and the Apostles not make appeals to the Jews first and then to the rest of the world? Is presenting the gospel not also making an appeal? You seem to take issue with it in a corporate service which is puzzling.

But you ignore the act of the individual of whom the appeal is made. What is it they do in this process? Do they not respond to the appeal in an effort to come into a relationship with God? Does not this act by the responder constitute worship? You have a strange idea of what worship is and it most certainly is not historically Baptist. Let's not misrepresent the alter call so we can build a case against it but instead with integrity and intellectual honesty look at everything that occurs in an alter call and measure it against scripture.

 

May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you!

 

I think there is a basic difference of opinion between us on what is "Public" and Private" worship.

 

Oh, He has for decades in more ways than I will ever know. That has nothing to do with a loose cannon signing up for the board and right off the bat insulting people. There have been some who did that, but they do not last long.

 

This quote of yours was edited. Your original was very disrepectful to others. This board is for an honest exchange of ideas, not to play games.

 

To take the bashing off of one brother, I agree that I don't see the altar call as being commanded in Scripture. Baptism was to be the public profession of faith. Was throughout Acts. Altar calls are modern inventions.

The argument goes: they aren't condemned in Scripture, so why not? Neither are oil wrestling matches. Are these fair game for worship in the church? And I've heard the "hymnals aren't commanded/prohibited." stuff. Again, you're talking apples and apple computers. One is a practice (the altar call); the other is a conduit/facilitator for the practice (hymnals, electricity, etc.). This is fundamental. We shouldn't abuse the Word of God by falsely defining something. Singing is an element; psalms, hymns, songs are the conduits. That's why I get frustrated with those who say choruses are wrong. There's nothing to say that. But some choruses need thrown out because they're indicative of shoddy theology. So are some hymns. Whether we are regulative or normative, can we at least agree that a practice must adhere to Biblical principles (and not violate them)?

Far too many preachers make the altar call an essential element of a gospel response. This is Scripturally unfounded. Repentance and faith are these responses, with baptism being the public confession.

The practice itself is not commanded to be part of worship. Singing, prayers, preaching, offerings, ordinances...these are. I think when we really think through our theology of worship and the theology of salvation, we have some 'splainin to do when we tack on this modern invention.

There has been a good summary of the normative vs regulative principle. It boils down to that. Those who hold to the regulative principle would see the altar call differently than the normative principle adherents.

Now, I give invitations. You have to nowadays in the Baptist churches. You can preach that Jesus is a woman, but as long as you give an altar call you're okay in most so-called Baptist churches. Sometimes you have to remember that churches are not born where they need to be. I do my dead level best to articulate clearly that the person making a public response is doing so to only share what has been wrought in their hearts, but never so much emphasis that the act of baptism is diminished (the altar call has pretty much castrated the act of baptism in most Baptist churches ironically) or that the fruit of a changed life is not made second to the emotional "I went forward I was so moved today" appeal. I agree that abuses should not make us jettison a practice. The ultimate test of whether we practice something or not in worship is does this pass a Bibilcal litmus test.

Even anti-altar call folks had some sort of public response as part of their church ministry. Spurgeon had inquiry rooms, for example. We need to remember that some of the greatest men of God and most fruitful evangelists never gave an altar call. Lloyd Jones, Spurgeon, Whitefield, etc., and a host of contemporary folks all don't have an invitation hymn, yet people run to the cross for salvation and they appeal for them to do so.

I realize this is a sacred cow. I realize emotion takes over. But I encourage all to examine their theology of worship and their soteriology. Look at the altar call (or anything) through a Biblical lens. Leave off what granny said and brother so-and-so did, and let God's word ring true. You might be surprised.

 

"I fear that some of our orthodox brethren have been prejudiced against the free invitations of the gospel by hearing the raw, undigested harangues of revivalist speakers whose heads are loosely put together." ---Charles Spurgeon