Is the "altar call" Biblical?

I disagree. I believe that when I talk about local churches holding worship services and gathering together for the edification of the body, the corporate preaching and teaching of the Word of God, corporate worship, and exhortation, it's very clear who I'm talking about.

 

Wow. You are just all over the map, aren't you. First, you said that the unregenerate are Jesus' sheep. Now you're saying that 15:14 is talking about the unregenerate?

Show me where in the Bible we're told that the local assembly of believers is for the unsaved.

 

No. The Bible does not prohibit an altar call. The problem is that many of the things in an altar call go against the Biblical model. Even if something is not expressly forbidden, why would you want to do something that is at odds with what we see in scripture?

It must be. Many people do it dozens of times.

What purpose does music have during an invitation but to play on someone's emotions? Why does there have to be music?

Baptism is the public statement we see in scripture.

 

Tom, just a reminder that false professors got to be church officers in your oft-vaunted "Romanian Exemplar".

 

I've pretty much turned 180 degrees on this issue. I used to think that we needed altar calls on Sunday Morning, Sunday night, Wed. night, Funerals, weddings, etc. Now, I'm exactly opposite.

The article pretty much sums up my thinking on the issue (ironic as the first time I saw a church not have it, I thought it was tantamount to blasphemy!). He pretty much covered all my theological reasons for rejecting the practice... however, there are a few more practical issues I have with it that I'll include. Just my thoughts - no need to be converted...

1. This may not be true in every church... But in our church, our pastor has been here for 10 years. In that time, there have been 2 people who have "walked the aisle" without previous counseling to do so (ie. they had already accepted Christ and were coming foward for baptism or something like that). This tells me (at least in our church) it is an outdated method. Like every other outdated and ineffective method, it needs to be discarded. I suspect our church is not the only one. By the way, lest you think different, we are a growing church, and regularly have people answer the altar call that is given - however, the vast majority do so with previous instructions (all but 2-3 in 10 years!)

2. Which is better? Someone coming forward for counseling and prayer in front of everyone, listen to their questions and concerns, ask questions, open the Scriptures, find out where they truly are in their walk with Christ, counsel them in the right direction, and pray with them - all within the time frame of 4 stanzas of "Just As I Am"? Or make an appointment with them on another day of the week and take all the time that is needed? (I can't remember if this reason was in the original article or not) Of course, this is not the most compelling reason because the appointment can be made in the altar call.

The next two are my primary ones...

3. If most of us are honest, the altar call puts an unbiblical standard of the effectiveness and success on our sermons. If the altar call is empty, especially over a long period of time - we do not think our sermons or our preaching is effective. The true measure of success in preaching and ministry is NOT effectiveness and results, but faithfulness to God and the Scriptures.

4. Especially in a revival or youth camp setting, where they are "most effective", often times people are worked up into an emotional state and then when the "decision time" comes, they are encouraged to come forward and make "decisions for Christ."

However, often these enticemements to come forward are usually made with little to absolutely NO encouragament to count the costs before such a decision is made. These are precisely the kind of commitments and decisions that are DISCOURAGED and warned against in Scripture - not encouraged. It is much better to take a few days, a week, or even longer to count the costs of such a vow or commitment and if they determine that it is more than they are willing to pay, not make the commitment in the first place. That is much better than making a rash, emotional commitment to Christ and not follow through. (Dt. 23.21-23; Lk. 14.25-33)

Now, admittedly, in our church we have an altar call every week. I do not make a big deal of it as this is not my only or primary issue in the faith. It's a tradition that I can do with or without. I prefer without.

Just my random thoughts. Hope they help someone.

Randy Scott

 

In assuming that you can enjoin the meanings of the Church/BOC and a church building in that regard; indeed it is, getting clearer “who” you are talking about; all I have to do is compare this perceived lack of distinction to the many biblical examples of the same types of beliefs and behaviors which aid me in the recognition.

:tonofbricks:

 

Yeah, they did. I do draw a distinction between those who set out purposely to deceive, those who make a profession while they are themselves deceived.

 

Any baptism seen in the NT done in public is simply pure coincidence. It is not a public statement. If it was then the Ethiopian Eunuch would have waited until he got back to Egypt and would have been baptized before Candace the Queen, for whom he worked, and all the palace officials, and made it public. Or, he would have waited until a church was started that believers could have witnessed it. Either way, he would not have been baptized in the middle of the desert with absolutely no one to witness his baptism!
It was not a public statement. His was as private as a baptism could be--just him and the baptizer, that is all. It was not a public statement, and by Scripture we can see that very well.

 

First most Calvinists equate regeneration with the new birth. True enough?
Let us then look at Scripture:

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)

We are born again by the Word of God. This is an inescapable fact. Without the Word of God there can be no new birth; no regeneration. I have had no Calvinist answer me yet. If you can please answer this. It is a simple question. If regeneration precedes salvation, by how long does it precede, and by how long is it possible to precede? a few moments? Hours? Days? Months? Years? What is the time limit between regeneration and salvation if one precedes the other?

However let's not stray. The Word of God is essential to regeneration. The Word of God is preached on Sunday. What happens between Monday and Sunday with the average unbeliever. He goes to work with an ungodly crowd--unlikely that he will hear the word of God there. He may go the bar after work. Won't hear the word of God there. Goes home to his unsaved family. Won't hear the word of God there. Turns on the TV, and may watch sports or some ungodly TV program--won't hear the Word of there. And sometime after that will go to bed and start the same routine all over again. Unless someone deliberately takes the word of God to him and explains the gospel to him what chance is there of him hearing the Word of God and being saved. There isn't.

You say that God isn't confined to Sunday. That is partly true. But he has confined himself to the preaching of his word as he has said many times in the first chapter of 1Cor.
Regeneration, it is said, comes before salvation.
How? Does this man sit in the middle of his floor and the Holy Spirit come and mystically float about him, esoterically open up his eyes to the gospel, give him God's faith, enlighten him to the gospel, even though he has never heard of it. This is metaphysical new age eastern mysticism and has nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

I agree with what you say. But I am saying look at the statistics of the average man in the average household. Where is he more apt to hear the Word of God? Most likely if a friend or relative invites him to church on Sunday. Most people that I am acquainted with are saved because they went to church with a friend, or even as an indirect result of that. They heard the gospel there. Even if they trusted Christ at home they most likely heard the gospel in a church. I am simply basing my argument on statistics.

The other part of my argument I am sure you will agree with. It is based on the Word of God. They must hear the Word of God to be saved. It is most likely they will hear the Word of God to be saved.

I asked some questions of you because I assumed you were Calvinist. I was wrong. I should have gone back and read some of your posts to see. "Statistically" there are most Calvinists than non-Calvinists, so sometimes I just assume who I am talking to is a Calvinist. Sorry about that.

My experience is that in this generation door to door evangelism is very weak in our churches. So if the unbelievers are going to hear God's Word, it will be through the preaching of the Word, which more than likely will be on a Sunday. That is all that I am saying.

 

I think this is a two-sided problem. You say that churches aren't equipping the saints; but how many of the saints are content with the level of "equipping" they've received? i.e., are happy to let the pastor do the preaching and teaching?

The scriptural model, in my personal be-it-ever-so-humble opinion <grin>, is to follow what is stated several times: Some are apostles, some are teachers, some have the gift of helps, etc. We have many members in the body, but they are all of the same body.

The scriptural model, again in my personal opinion, is recognizing that each of us have specific talents and gifts; and coordinating each of those to work with and complement each other, rather than focus on any particular "method" or "formula."

Those that are better at helps, should be bringing the unsaved with them to someone who has the gift of apostleship and/or teaching.

As an example, I'm having a hard time with our new pastor's "go out and get them" plan, because it basically requires everyone to do things the same way. There's no leeway for individual gifts or talents.

Unless you had something else in mind regarding "equipping the saints."

 

I haven't read all 12 pages of this thread, so if this has been addressed, my apologies.

But regarding the topic title, how do we characterize the event in Acts 2? Granted, it's not an altar call as we see it practiced today; but the message was preached, and people took the opportunity to come forward.

 

Agreed that "door-to-door" is likely outmoded. most subdivisions (that aren't gated/secure) have prohibitions about solicitations. The most effective evangelists in the church are people in the church, and the pastor is but one.

 

The church needs a good invitation.
The non-denominational church down the street has a mosh-pit. :laugh:

The last thing that I want to copy is the type of invitation that draws on and on until someone will walk down the aisle just to satisfy the preacher that a soul walked the aisle for him. (He doesn't quit otherwise).

It was Charles Finney's theology--use any means possible to reach the intended target: getting a person saved, down the aisle and make a profession.

However, in a good message with a strong conclusion; the conclusion itself being an invitation, the members of the church should be discipled well enough to counsel people's problems, lead a soul to Christ, etc. Every church needs to have not only spiritual deacons, but others as well that they can depend on.