What I have sought to establish in these past three posts is a very careful and critical evaluation of the altar-call. It has been my intention to hold up this "sacred cow" of modern evangelism, in the light of both Scripture and church history, to prove that it is purely a practice of man's invention driven initially by pragmatic motives without the warrant of God's Word. Moreover, its theological construct actually robs God of His glory in redemption, by positioning man's will as the determinate factor for why anyone is saved. Hence, the altar-call does not "call" sinners to look only to Christ for their salvation; but rather, their focus is fixed on what they must do (e.g, walk an aisle, pray a prayer, sign a card) in order to secure themselves in God's favor. The fruit however of such misguidance are largely false conversions instead of sinners truly casting themselves solely upon Christ and His saving work. Suffice it to say, the altar-call should be abandoned as an unbiblical method which undermines both the gospel and the redeeming work of Christ.
Now with such a strong condemnation for the altar-call, what kind of evangelism should then be practiced? If we take the altar-call away, what are we left with? In the first place, to remove the altar-call we will reestablish the sufficiency of the gospel. This means that the gospel will again be seen as "the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes" (Rom.1:16), and thus what God has ordained for bringing sinners unto a saving faith in Jesus Christ (Rom.10:14-17). Furthermore, the gospel-commands to "believe" and "repent" will take their rightful place as the only biblical responses necessary to salvation (Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21); as opposed to the unbiblical commands to "raise a hand", "repeat the sinner's prayer", "walk an aisle", or "sign a card." In short, the gospel has its own built-in invitation to all sinners that is sufficient for their salvation, without the confusion and benighted notion of "coming to the altar to be saved."
In the second place, to remove the altar-call we will reestablish the necessity of the Spirit's work of regeneration. To call sinners to an altar for salvation takes away from the fundamental urgency to be "born again" (Jn.3:3-8). If a mere decision and a "coming forward" is all we need to be saved, then why must there be a new birth? But the truth is, we have "stoney hearts" which God in His sovereign mercy must replace with "new hearts", so that we will be savingly converted to Christ (Ezk.36:26; Tit.3:5,6). With no altar-call the doctrine of the new birth can be proclaimed without obstruction, and the sinner will be impressed with the fact that a "change of heart" is the very core and essence of his salvation. As Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) once declared: "I speak advisedly when I say that the doctrine of 'believe and live' would be a very dangerous one if it were not accompanied by the doctrine of regeneration." Remember what Christ said to Nicodemus: "You must be born again" (Jn.3:7, emphasis mine). Without regeneration there is no faith or repentance (Jn.1:12-13).
In the third and final place, to remove the altar-call we will reestablish a context of integrity for both conversions and church membership. This is probably the greatest need of the hour for the local church. The altar-call has bloated so many churches with members who have no fruit to prove the credibility of their conversion. But if the altar-call is taken away, then greater time, patience, and care can be given to sinners who "seem" to be under conviction for their sin and are asking questions about Christ. This means that conversions will not be rushed or forced for the sake of "numbers" or "results" - but instead, the gospel is faithfully preached, sinners are called to believe and repent, and God is trusted for the work which He alone can do, namely, save sinners! In time, we must be assured that if God has brought salvation, then the fruit of that conversion will eventually manifest itself (Matt.13:18-23); and the result will be a church membership with integrity. This, above all, must be recovered in our day.
Posts
9 comments:
you never gave the biblical alternative...
Actually, Jason, I did give the biblical alternative - in short, preach the gospel and leave the results to God (see I Cor.3:6-7). This has really been my primary point in every post I've given concerning the altar-call. If however I have not been clear enough about that, my apology. The gospel is sufficient, so why add to it what Scripture does not warrant?
i just would have used a different title for you post if you didn't intend to give an alternative other than "no alternative"
Jason,
I must admit that I am both amused and puzzled by your response. By sheer observation, it sounds as if you are still looking for a "man-made method" to call sinners to salvation other than what the Bible gives us as our only means in evangelism - i.e., prayer and preaching the gospel (see Mark 16:15; Rom.10:1,14-17; I Cor.1:18;2:2). Proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ IS the biblical "alternative" to what has become the norm in mainstream American evangelicalism. Why should we be looking for something to replace the altar-call that is NOT biblical, when we have what God has given us by simply preaching Christ and Him crucified? To replace one man-made method with another man-made method is not solving our problem. Thus, the alternative of Scripture turns us away from what we can come up with, by trusting God with what He has provided and ordained to be the means by which He will call sinners savingly to Himself.
In our church we have actually seen real conversions to Christ WITHOUT the altar-call. And the way that we have been able to discern if a person is saved has been to simply look for the fruit that the Holy Spirit will bring forth in a soul He has regenerated - like godly sorrow over sin (II Cor.7:12), a confidence in Christ alone as one's only hope for salvation (John 3:18a,36), repentance of sin and a turning toward God to live for Him above all (Luke 19:1-9). These examples should be initially present in anyone who has been truly converted to Christ. Moreover, we can be sure that this fruit will manifest itself because the new life given by the Spirit of God will be seen. As Jesus told Nicodemus,"The wind blows where it wishes, AND YOU HEAR ITS SOUND, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. SO IS EVERYONE WHO IS BORN OF THE SPIRIT" (John 3:8). What's the point of this statement? When we hear the sound of the wind and see the fruit of its works, we do not question for a moment that the wind is blowing, though we can neither control nor see the wind itself. Hence, it is the same with those who are "born of the Spirit." We cannot predict or control or even know when, where, and to what extent the Holy Spirit will work to bring about the new birth in lost sinners. But when we see the fruit brought forth in a manifest change of heart and life, we do not question for a moment the reality of the Spirit's work in that soul. My point in all this is simply to say: we can only be responsible for what God has called us to do - pray for the salvation of sinners and proclaim Christ to them. God ALONE is responsible to save. So, why can't we be content with the means God has provided for us in evangelism and leave the results in His hands?
yes, Kurt, I am so man-centered, and you are so Christ-centered. o wretched man that I am, who'll deliver me from the body of self-sufficiency and reliance upon manipulative tactics so that I can fall down at the feet of the doctrines of grace and worship them with unadulterated purity...
anyway, no i agree with you by and large, and we have people converted regularly without "altar-call's." in fact, i would probably suggest that we don't have altar calls the way that you describe them at all. but my comments were framed in the understanding that even those who do unbiblical altar calls are preaching the gospel, they just happen to have something after their proclamation. and i realize that you see no need for it. but your post title would lead one to believe that you are going to offer some alternative from a practical standpoint, rather than theological in nature, with the assumption (i know about assumptions) that the gospel is being proclaimed in both scenarios.
i mean do you pray when you are done proclaiming? do you exhort people to believe or trust in Christ? do you simply talk about the gospel facts, then when you are done, step down? if someone asks questions about following Jesus, like in Acts 2 do you say, "Christ lived, died, rose again for your sins (maybe, if you are elect)" and let them go at that? Be practical, which I know is derived from your theology. But flesh it out for me, what does it look like on Sundays?
sorry to be so contrary, but it seems like you are verging upon legalism in your pursuit of orthopraxy. and my fear is that militant Calvinist like you do more harm that good for the kingdom because of your divisiveness and insistence on certain soap boxes, traditions, and practices. and it makes it more difficult on us other Calvinists (who are not angry about it) to work with others, or even get a hearing among our non-Calvinist brethren.
Jason,
Let me begin by saying that smearing me with personal slander as a "militant Calvinist" or an "angry Calvinist" is not going to get us very far in any honest discussion about whatever the topic may be. I had no idea that your perception of me was so muddled and ugly. And quite frankly, I don't know where it's coming from. The truth is, you don't know me well enough to even make such comments. Remember Proverbs 18:13! We have had only two personal conversations with each other (over a year ago), and thus not near enough time to make any such sharp and critical judgments about one's character.
If you have personal issues with me of such an offensive nature - then, brother, for the sake of Christ, we need to meet face to face and seek reconciliation. Because if I have said or done anything based on the only two times we have actually conversed, then I need to know how I have offended you. But above all, I believe we just need to get a better understanding of where each other is coming from.
Now as far as what I practically do on Sunday mornings: during the exposition of God's Word, I will call sinners to come to faith in Christ and turn away from their sins. In short, I call sinners every week to trust Christ alone and repent. At the close of my sermon, I typically have questions of self-examination and will always close in prayer for the unsaved. Furthermore, I do make myself available at the end of each service for anyone who has further questions about salvation. In addition to this, our church has an extensive literature table that is full of gospel tracts, booklets, and books free of charge to anyone who desires to dig deeper. Moreover, our church as a whole, has a regular evangelistic outreach into the community of Cook County. Our goal is to reach every home in the County with the gospel. We go door to door, engaging people with the gospel, and leaving them with what we call our "Gospel Care Packet" (which includes John Blanchard's "Ultimate Questions", a CD of an evangelistic message I preached from Romans 6:23, and a brochure about our church). Also, every year, we open the doors of our church for the annual Le-nox Festival, providing hospitiable services to all the vistors (a clean restroom, free coffee, bottled water, and hot chocolate)combined with a Gospel Care package to those who will take it. We have also been involved in the helping of a church plant in Albany, GA. Individually, our church members are always on mission at their schools, in their businesses, and in their families - actively engaging others in personal evangelism. Needless to say, our church is highly committed to the Great Commission on the local level. Furthermore, in addition to supporting Southern Baptist Foreign and Home Missons, we also directly support two full-time missionaries to Mexico City.
I know that I have given you more than what you originally asked for, but I wanted to paint a broader picture of our church within the context of personal evangelism and missions. The bottom line is, despite what you may think, neither I nor the church I pastor are Hyper-Calvinists. And I take great offense to being labeled as such. When I look at people around me, I see sinners who need a Savior and therefore seek to bring them to Christ by the means God has provided. And I never ask the sinner if they are one of the elect!
I hope and pray that in some way, my response to you has satisfied what you were looking for. But most of all, I pray that this conversation will begin to clear away your obvious misconceptions about who I am and what I am about. The truth is, Jason, I think you would be surprised at how much more we have in common than not.
my apologies, guess I did come off a little strong. not to justify, but simply to explain that it aggravates me when you label everyone's method that is different from yours as "manipulative" or "man-made." there is no liberty or wiggle room to disagree without appearing to be labeled a less spiritual or educated or mature Christ-follower.
my perception of you is not limited to a conversation or two. I get your newsletter every month (which I enjoy), and have a feed for your blog (which I read), and have plenty of mutual friends with you. and I appreciate you as a pastor, scholar, theologian, and historian, as well as a husband and father. and I do think that you and I share much more in common with each other than we disagree on. but my hope is that you can disagree with a little more grace, because even though your speech was a little more socially acceptable than mine was, it still communicated the same thing--that if you disagree with me, you must not be as close to Jesus as I am. and i am sure that is not your intention, but my hope is that more grace can be extended to those who disagree with our assessments of fringe issues like the illegitimacy of public invitations.
and i wasn't calling into question your evangelistic fervor, or your missionary zeal, nor even calling you a hyper calvinist (for you don't believe in eternal justification, right?) i don't believe you are a hyper calvinist. i just believe that everything that comes out of your blog, mouth, mind, and newsletter is directly related to calvinism, reformed issues, or the superiority of the doctrines of grace. 99% of which i agree with. i just feel that you are kinda like a waffle iron, no matter what batter you pour in, it always comes out looking like calvinistic this or that. i just don't think that one has to spend that much time and effort arguing for a man-made formulation of doctrine, no matter how biblical it is. and my preaching betrays my calvinistic convictions too, but not all the time to everyone.
so, again, my apologies, I count you as a brother, and fellow laborer in Christ, moreso than many of my pastor brethren in our association, because of our common convictions. and thanks for finally fleshing it out for me. we do much of the same here, although we still have a very brief time of response to the proclamation of the gospel at the end of the service, sorry. blessings,
Jason,
Thank you for your gracious response, and humble apology. I certainly apologize to you for giving the impression that I think that I am MORE God-centered because I am a Calvinist and others are not. Of course, let me state for the record, that nothing could be further from the truth. I remind myself constantly of something that George Whitefield said of himself, as he witnessed a man about to be hung: "There BUT for the grace of God go I." In other words, left to myself in all of my filth and sin, I am no better and would end up in the same place of condemnation were it not for God's grace and mercy. This is a real conviction of my own heart. But, I would also be self-deceived if I didn't admit with shame that such a conviction has not always conquered the remaining sin of my own pride and conceit. So while I don't believe I am better than other fellow Christians, there is an ongoing war with sinful pride that seeks to think such delusional thoughts. But if I'm not mistaken, I think this is the experience of every Christian anyway - you know, something about the flesh setting its desires against the Spirit, etc. (Gal.5:17).
As far as giving "more grace" to those who disagree with "our assessments" - I am all for this! Am I consistent in doing this? Sadly, no. But it is a principle that I can honestly say I strive to do for the simple reason that I would want others to extend the same grace to me (Matt.7:12). However, you must admit that in our postmodern, "live and let live", "truth doesn't matter" age (which has bleed deeply into the church), any Christian who shows any strong conviction about the truth of Scripture (no matter what it is) is going to be labeled arrogant, pugnacious, bigoted, and unloving. And these labels will be attached to us, despite how gentle and humble we honestly attempt to be while communicating the truth. I have tasted this bitter fruit far too many times, as I am sure you have also. My point in this observation is simply to say, that while we may make every effort to extend more grace to those who disagree, the results are not always going to be that we are well thought of - since we are still maintaining our strong convictions for the truth. Of course, this reality would never justify a refusal on our part to be more gracious, but it should at least keep our motives in check. Am I extending more grace for the sake of Christ in His honor or for the mere sake of avoiding conflict and being everyone's friend (please note: this latter motive I am not implying that you are guilty of)?
In addition to this, regarding my strong convictions as a Reformed Baptist (or Calvinist, if you prefer) - I simply have no shame here. Like Spurgeon, I believe Reformed Theology to be simply a nickname for biblical Christianity. Moreover, this is my confessional and theological identity which is naturally going to show up in everything I write and preach. However, Reformed Theology goes far beyond the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism" (just read the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith as an example). Thus, it is a full-orbed faith which takes in the theology of the whole Bible. But again, I am what I am theologically and confessionally: Reformed, Evangelical, and Baptist. And I would not expect any of my fellow Christians who are not in this same confessional camp to hide where they stand doctrinally as well.
But above everything, I really think that you and I just need to get together and fellowship for the purpose of pure edification. My original motive for contacting you over a year ago, was because I believed we could have profitable fellowship since we do have so much in common. Honestly, I really think you and I could be a great encouragement to each other to press on in the ministry where God has called us to serve. Once again, thanks for your gracious response.
As far as what it (no altar-call) looks like in practice, here is what I observed at a large (1,200+) church in the Daytona Beach area. The pastor at this church is also fairly heavy on theology, and is also not bashful about his Calvinistic convictions. During virtually every one of his sermons, regardless of the topic, I dare say he never failed to give a gospel presentation and passionately implore people to "come to Christ." At the conclusion of the service, people are invited to come speak with any one of several staff/volunteers located around the sanctuary with any questions and/or if they have recieved Christ. They are then invited to participate in a (free) membership class that helps them investigate Christianity and what the Bible says a true Christian is. A purpose of the class is to help new converts understand that the Christian life isn't (and cannot be) about "fire insurance." Jesus is Savior AND Lord, as it is not possible to [biblically] divorce the two.
This is where criticism of the altar-call comes in. It is part of the testimony of both myself and Kurt that we both responded to an altar-call(s) at a young age. We were given immediate assurance of salvation, although it is impossible for a human to be capable of making that judgment in that moment. (It was 10 years later that I actually came to know Christ . I was deceived for 10 years!) Conviction LEADS to repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10), but it does not equal it. It definitely does not equal salvation. So the problem with the altar-call as it is predominately practiced is that it calls on people's emotions to make a decision and then makes that *human* decision the basis for that person's assurance of salvation. But the Bible teaches that evidence of salvation is seen in the fruits of one's life (Gal 5:19-22). Of course, works do NOT earn salvation; they are only indicators. You may well have structured an invitation that avoids the pitfalls, but most pastors/churches have not. So critique of the altar-call is not aimed at you, but as it is most commonly executed.
An altar-call is simply not needed. Not only does the Bible not specifically call for it, there is also no example of Jesus or the early church using anything like it. Here's the most biblical method I know of: the Gospel is to be preached and people are to be called to repent and come to Christ and be saved. The pastor and congregation prayerfully trust (based on the promises and commands of the Bible) that His Word "will not return void." This may seem simplistic, but it is what the Bible prescribes. God is sovereign, and the heart of no person is outside His saving grace. Belief in Christ is not a deal to be pitched or a sale to be closed. The gospel itself is effective because God has declared the preaching of it the means of salvation. Since God is all-wise, we should not feel that we are capable of adding to or improving upon His method that he has laid out in His Word.
Post a Comment