The History behind the Altar-Call

How and why did the altar-call ever become a part of mainstream evangelism? The actual history behind the altar-call began in the late 1700s with the first generation of American Methodists in America. Being concerned not to admit anyone prematurely into church membership, the Methodists began to "count" the number of their converts. The system they came up with for securing this knowledge of true conversions was what they called "the invitation to the altar." The Methodists referred to the "altar" as the end of the building in front of the communion table, which was derived from their roots in the Church of England. Their intial practice of this method was simply bringing individuals to identify themselves publicly to be prayed for and given instruction as new converts to Christ. No one, at first, claimed the altar-call as a means of salvation. However, very soon, and inevitably, "coming to the altar" came to be confused with actual conversion to Christ. Methodist preachers would be heard calling people to "come to the altar and be saved."

It wasn't until the 1820s though, that this innovative practice of American Methodism would become the mainstream of American Evangelicalism. And the introduction of the altar-call to the rest of Protestant America would not come from a Methodist - but a lawyer from New England who was ordained in the Presbyterian church. His name was Charles G. Finney (1792-1875). Finney has been hailed as "America's Greatest Revivalist" and "the premier evangelist of the nineteenth-century." It is beyond dispute that his methods and theology changed the whole course for how evangelicals in America would approach the meaning of revival and the techniques of large-scale evangelism. But what should be in dispute is if following the methods and theology of Charles Finney is conforming to the wisdom and truth of Scripture concerning conversion and evangelism.

You see, for Finney, hijacking the altar-call from the Methodists needed no adjustments for his doctrinal position. Calling people to come forward and giving them immediate assurance of salvation for their public response, was a logical fit for what Finney believed to be a true conversion to Christ. In his theology, all that a sinner needed to be saved was a decision of the will, rather than a regeneration of his nature. In other words, Finney did not believe in the necessity of the new birth (Jn.1:13; 3:1-8) because he did not believe in the reality of the sinner's depraved nature (Jer.17:9; Eph.2:1-3).

Charles Finney was in fact a Pelagian at heart. His entire theology of salvation embodied the fifth-century heresy known as Pelagianism (412 A.D.). Therefore Finney denied the biblical doctrines of original sin, salvation by grace alone, justification by faith alone, and even, the penal substitution of Christ's death. Needless to say, Finney was a bona fide heretic - who dazzled his generation with persuasive arguments that pitted reason over revelation, emotional tactics to manipulate the crowds, and quick conversions - which were documented over a period of several years and proven false by the apostasy of most people who "came to the altar" in his meetings.

Sadly though, "Finneyism" is still alive and well in many churches today. Conversions to Christ are still counted as people answering the altar-call, rather than seeing the evidence of genuine spiritual fruit (Gal.5:22-23). And the determining factor for salvation is still attributed to man's will rather than God's sovereign grace (cf. Rom.8:30). Finney would be proud. But what should matter most for us is this: is God glorified by a method not sanctioned by His Word in which man is given the credit for salvation? We know the answer...but will we obey?