Replies

"I learned that night [a lesson] which I have never forgotten; and that is, when I preach, to press Christ upon the people then and there, and try to bring them to a decision on the spot. I would rather have that right hand cut off than to give an audience a week now to decide what to do with Jesus."

Is it really bringing anyone to a decision or is it rather bringing a person to the point of awareness of Christ in them? I can recall when the Lord was pulling me towards himself and not understanding this strange presence. I'd occassionally go to church and as soon as I stepped inside I would immediately begin to cry. Jesus was already moving in my heart to receive."No one comes to the Father except by me" No one, no human could have convinced me that I needed to "accept" Christ because Christ had already accepted me and came to me and the work was already complete. Now what would have helped me a great deal is if someone in the church had shown me how to acknowledge that presence in me. I guess what I mean by this is discipling. Perhaps that is what you are calling "accepting"? Though that never happened for me (verbally acknowleding Christ at an altar) I still grew in my faith and have been encouraged since then by believers to walk in this faith.

I belong to a church that does extend a call at almost every Sunday service. However, it extends communion and baptism only in what we call 'believers services' held mid-week and at other special times during the year. In the case of communion, it is our belief that it keeps the non-believer from entering in and adding upon himself such sin. In the case of baptism, it is our belief that such a public pronouncement is only understood by those already in the Body anyway.

I'm not convinced that every Sunday should involve an altar call, but I do believe it is essential following a sermon of Holy Spirit conviction. In other words, I would like to hear more pastors preach the hard realities, ask listeners to count the cost, and remind unbelievers that they know not their time. THEN (and coupled with a move of the Spirit of God upon that pastor in that moment to do so) there should there be an altar call.

Thanks for this link. I'm wanting to write a length reply, but work's very busy today. I'll have to be brief and a bit disjointed, I fear.

Truth is, I have mixed feelings and thoughts about the essay:

I myself "went forward" at a church service, met with a counselor, went through the Four Spiritual Laws, asked Christ into my heart. I have to say now, thirty years later, that the course of my life since, by God's grace, pretty well bears out my judgment that I was genuinely and soundly converted that day.
Yet, as a pastor, I never gave an altar call per se ("cattle call"), nor used the Four Spiritual Laws. So obviously I came to have reservations about them. (In fact, when I preached at one Southern Baptist church, one old fellow there was really exasperated with me not "inviting people to Christ." I protested that I did, every time I preached. After going back and forth on this amicably, I said, "What you want is for me to get their bodies moving, isn't it?" "Yes!" he cried, relieved that I'd finally seen the light. He finally graciously offered that, if I didn't know how to do it, I should let him do it for me.)
I think many of the author's observations are very accurate, and his tone is better than many such papers. Having said that....
I think some of these are properly categorized as "carping." For instance he complains about evangelists urging sinners to invite Christ into their lives, griping that the phrase:
hangs on nothing biblical (though John 1: 12 and Rev. 3: 20 are used, out of context, for its basis). It is considered, nonetheless, to be the pivotal and necessary instrument for becoming a true Christian. But God commands us to repentingly believe, not to invite Christ into the life.
Is that really a clear, major point of criticism? I don't think so. I am outside of Christ; by God's grace, I am drawn to be in Christ; I am a stranger, an alien, an enemy; I am made a child, a brother, a friend; I am heading Hellwards, and am turned around to head Heavenwards; I am walking against, and am turned around to walk with.
I can't express the desires all that gives birth to in a prayer asking the Lord Jesus to come into my heart and life? That would be bad?
As a young-but-Biblically-educated Christian, I started getting these Calvinoid criticisms, and wondering -- "What are they saying? Did I do something wrong? How do I tell someone to get from point A to point Omega? The Spirit and the bride say, 'Come' -- but I can't?"
All this has the effect of reinforcing in the minds of non-Calvinists the image of us Calvinists as cold, cerebral critics, looking down (WAY down) our long noses at the rabble down there, and occasionally curling our lips to let off a cutting remark or two — while it is they who actually try to urge sinners to Christ. Put another way:
This reinforces the image that evanglism is (A) done by non-Calvinists, and (B) criticized by Calvinists.
A man said to an evangelist once, "Sir, I do not like your methods!" The evangelist responded, "I am always eager to learn a better way to urge sinners to the Savior. So tell me, what are your methods?" The man retorted, "Why, I haven't any!" Sadly, the evangelist said, "I like mine better."
There is a valid point to that.

Dan
Biblical Christianity message board

I don't disagree with any of the approaches the article mentions. To me, it is silly to debate whether those wishing to accept Christ should go forward or stay in their seats. (Although 'call for an appointment' does seem a bit cavalier for the most important decision one can make.)

As Paul said, "I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some." We should use all means to save some.

Some will be put off by an invitation hymn and an altar call. Others will be put off by the lack of one. I agree with the author that the Scriptures do not enjoin one, neither however, do they forbid one. This is the old "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos" partisanship.

The typical "sinner's prayer" as evangelicals have come to express it, has three elements: (1) a mere acknowledgment of sin, which is not the same as repentance, (2) a belief in the act of Christ's death, which is far removed from trust in his person and work, and, (3) an "inviting Christ into the life." The last phrase hangs on nothing biblical (though John 1: 12 and Rev. 3: 20 are used, out of context, for its basis). It is considered, nonetheless, to be the pivotal and necessary instrument for becoming a true Christian. But God commands us to repentingly believe, not to invite Christ into the life.

I have a problem with this one point, that this guy is complaining about ONLY believing in Christ's death, and not trusting in His person and work. Excuse me, but wasn't Jesus' work exactly that; his death? The cross of Christ is the centeral tentant of our faith, the great central divine act which brings men to salvation. Romans 10:9 does not say that if we confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord and believe in our hearts that He was a great teacher and healed a lot of people we will be saved. We confess belief in His death and resurrection.

While I to have a few concerns about the "Sinners Prayer" as such, it seems necessary, to me at least, that confession of belief in the cruxifiction, death and resurrection of Jesus, far above any good teaching or healing He did in life, is a crucial aspect to conversion.

But, that could just be me. I might be wrong.