Altar Calls?

I agree with your post. The bottom line is, as was said above, is that each church is autonomous. If one does not like the way the church chooses to conduct its worship, then that person is free to find a church that does conduct its worship to their liking.

In our church, for example, I cannot think of any circumstance that it would be changed. It is certainly one of those factors that I inquire about when calling a new pastor.

 

This is chock full of straw, friend. First, I've been in churches that had no "altar call" and saw people saved and baptized every single Sunday. Altar calls don't save. The gospel saves. Altar calls don't draw people to Christ. The Holy Spirit does.

I've seen churches practice altar calls every single Sunday that have about as much care for the salvation of souls as Oprah Winfrey's book club does. To make the altar call the Shibboleth of salvific concern is Scripturally unfounded and logically untenable.

And the man made questions for the middle of the service up front? Sounds like an altar call to me :laugh:

From what you say, it seems as though you've never been in a gospel church that did not have an altar call. Maybe you should visit one. I'd be more than happy to point you to some.
I hope I'm not misconstruing what you're saying. I actually did grow up in a church that was cold, mechanical, and didn't give a rip about the lost. Yet they had a mourner's bench and altar call every Sunday, Wednesday, and Saturday.

Asking someone to provide Scripture to support or oppose something notin the Bible to start with is asking the wrong question. As has been pointed out, no Scripture has been provided to justify the modern practice of the altar call, display its practice in Scripture/Early church, or even give creedance to it. This should speak volumes. But in today's church where the philosophies of man and the preferences of the masses are given priority over the inerrant Word, this should come as no surprise.

But if you're saying nothing new is being put forth, you're right. We've gotten quite a bit of agreement on some things and I think that's where we need to leave it. I still believe that, for the non-regulative person, the response time may be done in a way that does not violate the Scriptures. But we do need to ask about the theology of our worship. Why it offends some that our worship must stem from Biblical teachings is saddening. What we do must come from the Word. If it doesn't, we need to look long and hard before ever doing it again.

 

Well, friend, first of all, no one said that altar calls saved. The second point is, if you saw people "saved and baptised every Sunday," then some form of response was given, even if a talk after the service. If you will reread the post, you will see that I was talking about a Presbyterian service that went way beyond not having an altar call. I have agreed with all of your posts in this thread until this one. I have no idea what kind of church you are talking about pointing me to that is worse than the one I grew up in. Now, to get back to the church I grew up in, it smacks of the Pharisees when Jesus was walking this earth, and I suppose that is how I look at it. Lots of sayings, lots of classes, lots of examination by elders (who are no better than anyone else), and then, a mechanical response to the public several months later.

Maybe I did not make my points clear. I do not believe in an altar call that is a sales gimmic, or one that goes on verse after verse and a pastor uses that old Gong Show phrase, "one more time." But I do believe in an opportunity to immediatly express what is happening between you and the Lord.

I really wish you would explain to me how any of this relates to altar calls not saving and what type of church you wanted to show me.

I do agree with you that those that say it is not in the Bible, even though not condemned, is not allow are not operating with a full deck.

 

If you would change this to "invitation" I would agree with you. But an invitation doesn't necessarily mean a "go down front" altar call.

The "altar call" is a culturally specific invitation. There are other kinds that may be used depending on the culture. I preached this year in another Asian country (I can't give details) where the pastor baptized 49 while I was there, and God is doing other exciting things, too!! Yet in that culture they don't give altar calls. Instead, the workers go individually to the prospects after the service. God is doing a great work there.

 

I really like that post. An invitation is fine with me. Whatever keeps a local church from conducting business like the one I described.

From reading your posts, it seems like the Lord is doing great things through your ministry. May God continue to bless you, your family, and those you shepherd.

 

People responded, but it was through no human promptings. They made their profession of faith public at baptism after sharing with the pastor or someone else privately or out of the worship service. One did have response cards that were placed either in the offering plate or in a little box.

It did not come across clear, and that could be my fault. I would not be comfortable in that setting either. I see no good reason to wait lengthy periods between conversion and believer's baptism (the public response). Nor do I believe you believe in sales gimmicks.

I do too. In Scripture, people who were saved confessed this relationally through witness and testimony. Publically, they confessed it via baptism. I prefer that the public, worship-setting response to be what the I believe Bible prescribes and describes - baptism.

It's late...I don't understand this sentence. Maybe my deck has 51, to quote the Statler Brothers :)

I agree with the latter sentence. But the former...well, doesn't matter what you call it. It depends on what is done. What we do must be Biblical.

You are quite right about the cultural nature of the invitation/altar call. It seems that the method you describe is what has been done primarily throughout most cultures and most times, and I wish more churches would do that now. A great number are returning.

I praise God that the baptismal waters stir with the testimonies of the professing redeemed there!

I will see y'all in a couple of days. Going into the hospital with my daughter.

 

We have to keep in mind that the American-style invitation is of fairly recent vintage.

Every gospel sermon should contain within it the preacher's pointing men and women to Christ and a call for repentance. The practice of attaching it to the end of a service is something basically unheard of in America until the early 1800s.

No one here is opposed to a Biblical call to repentance.

What we are discussing here is whether today's American-style invitation resembles anything in the scriptures.

 

Thanks for the kind words. To clarify things, the 49 baptisms in the other Asian country (many hours by plane from Japan) were not directly from my preaching. These were people who had finished a baptismal course after having been evangelised by the national Christians. I do know that some Hindus were dealt with on salvation and baptism by the nationals after one of my messages, but I have no idea of the total response. (I can't reveal any more than that.) Maybe only God knows! And that's enough for me.

 

Of course simply because it is used in the American culture doesn't make it Biblically wrong. As I said before, invitations may be culturally specific, and I don't think that is wrong. Americans admire those who are willing to publically stand for their faith and "go down front."

On the other hand, Japanese (and some other Asian cultures) are always pressured to follow the group, and so I usually simply have an invitation of raised hands while heads are bowed--a private invitation if you will. They are not willing to go down to an "altar" by themselves in front of everyone else. It often takes Japanese much longer than Americans to be willing to make a public profession of faith through baptism.

 

Bingo.

Amen. I wish more had that mindset.

Some seem to think this makes it Biblically right and that's unfortunate.

Off to the hospital

 

By definition, if something is not in the Bible, it is 'unscriptural'. If there were scripture that mentioned an 'altar call', there would be no debate, would there? Thus those who say it is unscriptural are by default correct; and it now falls upon those questioned to prove that their techniques are Christ-honoring.

Not that it matters, because you may do whatever you like in your own church...

 

Well, at least your last statement is correct. Each church being autononmous can do business as they see lead by the Lord.

Here is a substitute word for altar call in your quote. You could choose one of thousands. "If there were scripture that mentioned computers in the church, there would be no debate would there? Thus those who say it is unscriptural are by default correct; now it falls upon those questioned to prove that their techniques are Christ-honoring.

People chosen by the Lord for salvation in the NT made it public, and did not wait around for a series of man made delays to do it.

 

Here is one reason why we should really be careful of the language we use in calling men and women to Christ:

In the huge majority of Baptist churches, every member on the roll responded to some kind of invitation.

In the huge majority of Baptist churches, those same membership rolls are bloated with people who haven't been there in years. Is there a connection?

In the average Baptist church this Sunday, it'll do well to see 40% of its members show up.

I"m familiar with a church which boasts 30,000 members. But plans for only about 10,000 on Sunday.

So, what kind of invitation did these absentee members respond to? What kind of conversion experience did these folks profess to have?

I am also familiar with a church which does not do invitations. On Sunday, its 300-seat auditorium will be full. The church has 150 members. It has a two-year probationary and discipling period. It's in Romania.

Culturally different? Of course. But that does not explain why American evangelical churches struggle to get a majority of its members to worship on any Sunday, and Romanian churches can't keep them away.

I suggest that when we employ "strategies" and "methods" in calling people to Christ, we be extremely careful with language and terminology. And maybe, just maybe, we ought to look to the Scriptures for some guidance, instead of looking to Finney, Moody, Graham or anybody else.

 

I agree with being careful, and your numbers are well taken. However, this is a vast difference between being careful and the situation I have been describing in the church(s) I grew up in.

 

That's not true. By that definition, airplanes and candy corn are unscriptural.

"Unscriptural" referrs to being contrary to scripture.

There's no scripture to support the claim that altar calls are contrary to scripture.

 

The invitation is not the problem with false conversions and bloated membership rolls. Even someone who comes down the isle of even seeks out the pastor can do the exact same thing. We are blaming the wrong thing.


Now it appears that any attempt to make an emotional appeal is being called manipulation. I reject that it is false. Jesus used very strong language in His appeals to people.

The church needs to be looking to see evidence of a real conversion before we add them to our membership roles. That is where the problem and mistake lies.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head there. Evidence of genuine conversation should not be particularly difficult to find.

Altar calls are not in and of themselves a problem.

 

Actually, 'unscriptural' means 'not of or from the scripture'. I believe 'anti-scriptural' is the word you mean. But I do not want to impede your debate, so by all means, continue.

 

I prefer "contrascriptural", but whenever I use it, people look at me funny. When people claim that something is unscriptural, theyr'e referring to it not being consistent with scripture. Until I get nominated by the context police, that's the usage that we'll have to accept.

I admit, I do like "anti-scriptural" though. It has a nice ring to it.