There have been lots of readers, but very few talkers on this series. Oh, well … let’s just keep going…
False Assurance
4. This confusion encourages people to base their assurance on a one-time event. The aisle walked or prayer prayed becomes a false stone of remembrance they look back on to assure themselves despite their lack of growth or blatantly sinful lifestyle. Yet the Bible tells us to base our assurance not on a prayer prayed or an aisle walked in the increasingly distant past. It tells us to look at our present and increasing love for others (1John 4:8, 20), the present and increasing holiness of our lifestyles (Matt 7:15-27; Heb 12:14; 1John 3:7-8), and the present and increasing orthodoxy of our doctrine (Gal 1:6-9; 2Tim 4:3; 1John 4:2-3; 15). (Paul Alexander- IX Marks)
The is, perhaps, the most compelling argument of all. My community is absolutely full of people who have some sort of religious experience … they “walked an aisle,” or raised their hand to say, “yes,” to Jesus in Vacation Bible School. Then, shortly after their baptism, they blended back into a church-free culture, and into a sinful, dishonorable lifestyle. I see this phenomenon every day, especially among the children of “churched” families.
But we must remember that a recurring theme throughout the New Testament is that the mark of a true believer is perseverance … not the fact that an individual answered an altar call.
I fear that many among the multitudes of “salvation prayers” and “strolls down the altar call aisles” have been inoculated against the true Gospel, rather than saved through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. They have substituted works (a walk and/or a “formula” prayer) for true faith in Christ.
October 31, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Hi Geoff! “They have substituted works (a walk and/or a “formula” prayer) for true faith in Christ.”
Okay, the stroll isn’t the salvation, the raised hand isn’t the salvation, the walk and the “formula” prayer, isn’t the salvation. I agree. I understand faith in Jesus’ blood, death, burial and resurrection is the salvation by the justification of Jesus in Jesus for Jesus. Sanctification in and through Jesus is salvation. Sanctification being worked out in us through the power of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit is our persevering ever-changing decreasing to self so Jesus can increase as more than Savior, but Lord. And some day we will be glorified when we die. So how do you bring a person to “true faith in Christ” without the substitutionary methodologies of our ancestors and contemporary false-teachers? Please, Geoff–explain to me the way in which a person is introduced, led and won to Jesus. I’m dense. Pretend I am lost without Jesus and have went to a local Baptist church and want to be saved. Please take me through the steps you would anyone like me. thanks. selahV
October 31, 2007 at 10:00 pm
SelahV,
You asked, “So how do you bring a person to “true faith in Christ” without the substitutionary methodologies of our ancestors and contemporary false-teachers?” I’m not sure what that question means.
But I think you answered it yourself. Repentance and faith. No walking, no music, no “simon sez” prayers are required. The moment that a person, within his/her heart and spirit, turns in repentance from a selfish life of sin and turns in faith to the salvation provided in Christ … they are saved.
You know, full well, what is necessary for salvation … you stated it beautifully in your comment.
Geoff
October 31, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Geoff,
I just completed reading your series on Altar Call Confusion. I note also, you’ve probably had, what is to you, a disappointing exchange about the subject.
My own query starts with the very first post where, apparently for utilitarian concerns, you chose to forego the ‘altar call’. You write:
<blockquote“Our decision not to do ‘altar call’ invitations was deliberate and strategic…we determined that our target group (adults under 40 with children)the altar call was actually a potential HINDRANCE to a response to the Gospel. We discovered that young people were often terrified by the prospect of walking in front of people, or having to speak in front of a crowd.”
First, Geoff, how is it that we are to determine our evangelistic practices based upon whether unbelievers feel good about them? Just because young people are uncomfortable with a practice does not negate the value of the practice, does it? Personally I find that odd given your very vocal dissent from ‘tradition’ which, virtually every time, is associated with that about which one is very comfortable.
I’m quite sure parents employ many valuable practices not considered comfortable by our Teens.
Furthermore, Geoff, being terrified before groups is not at all an exclusive phenomenon characteristic of the young. Rather it seems a phenomenon characteristic of humans. Most communication theory insists that ‘fear of speaking in public’ virtually always tops the list in fear studies.
Consequently, some folks have been ‘comforted’ when another accompanies them before a crowd. My question for you is, Geoff, how is that so different from your practice of ‘comforting’ others or, if you prefer, removing the ‘Hindrance’ for them from properly responding to the Gospel?
You state further, Geoff, that after searching the Scriptures and finding little Biblical support, you ‘elected not to include it [the altar call] in our regular worship experiences’. So far so good, my brother.
Nonetheless, the sand on your shore begins to shift in your posts. You quickly move from ‘we elected not to include altar calls’ at our Church to questioning the validity of altar calls period–a leap from a what is position–that is, we choose to not practice altar calls–to a what ought not be position–in other words, no church should practice altar calls.
Even more telling, my brother, is your challenge for others to ‘present their Biblical case for altar calls’. But even after you stated clearly you ’searched the Scriptures’ concerning them, out of the posts I’ve thus far read, including the present one, I have not read one verse–not one–that states the case for your own position. Perhaps, Geoff, I’ve overlooked a post and am perfectly willing to be corrected at this point.
What I have gathered from your series thus far is, you’ve made (and 9mx)a relatively strong case against the abuse of public altar calls. However, in that case, who do you wish to suggest does not agree with you that altar calls possess potential of abuse? I suggest you have no opponents, Geoff. Nothing there about which to contend because nobody disagrees with you.
Indeed, I do not think it too much to say that one would be hard pressed to name one valid practice we do as believers or even one doctrine that, even when spoken carefully, does not possess the potential of either misunderstanding and/or abuse.
I had a dear Methodist brother back in Tennessee with whom we would have some very heated discussions on the saints’ perseverance. I recall saying to him once, “Tom. Do it. For one time do it, please. Cut to the chase. What is the bottom line, in your view, that keeps you from embracing eternal security?” His reply near stole my breathe away. He said “If we teach people that their salvation is totally secure, I fear they will misunderstand and think they can do anything they want and still go to Heaven.”
My moral? Just because there exists abuse of a practice does not negate the validity of it. All the talk about ’some believing they walk the aisle and get saved’ or ‘they may be depending on human works and not God’s grace’ etc. simply has no potency, Geoff, to question the practice of altar calls themselves, but only the abuse of them about which, I venture, all agree with you.
Frankly, in the twenty five years I’ve been in Baptist Churches, I have never heard, that I can recall, a Pastor standing at the invitation, and saying: “Walk the aisle. Walking the aisle saves you. You’ll know you’re saved because you walked the aisle.”
Indeed I’ve given those invitations myself. I’ve done the best, under God, I knew how to do to speak repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ with those who come forward.
I think most Pastors–at least the Southern Baptist pastors I know–possess no less a passion to preach the pure Gospel as do you or I. And, if they can do so employing a traditional altar call, how is it they must endure the chiding remarks about their practice that you yourself despised at the beginning of this series?
There you wrote:
My encouragement is that you offer the very same freedom to those who choose to continue offering altar calls that you yourself crave in discontinuing altar calls.
Grace, Geoff. I trust your evening well. With that, I am…
Peter
November 1, 2007 at 5:35 am
Peter,
Thanks for the comment. I appreciate the challenge. Though I think you have misinterpreted some of my reasoning and motives behind the posts.
I simply stated my personal position in the opening post. The others have merely been my reactions to the article at IX Marks … which I have found to be an interesting and compelling series of arguments that tends to support my personal position and decision for the practice in our church. That’s all. And I even, on occasion, find a point or two of disagreement with that article.
I respectfully submit that I have not questioned the “freedom” of anyone or any church to do as they see fit. I have merely stated my position and gave some support for it (via the IX Marks article). Please show me one such “chiding remark.” To be honest, I can’t understand why you would say that my statement of my position and my reaction to an internet article is an “attack” upon anyone else’s position or practice. It is not.
Of course, the IX Marks article snippets are replete with Scripture references. But Peter, why must one present a biblical “case” to prove why they choose not to hold to a practice that, apparently, has little or no foundation in Scripture? How can I point out the “non-verse” that speaks to the “non-event” in the Bible called an altar call? That makes no sense.
And I am still looking for, and will certainly welcome, any biblical support that demonstrates the validity of a view (regarding the altar call) that opposes mine. So far none has been offered. Just statements to the effect that “…it can be effective if done right,” and, now, a effort to point out my inconsistencies.
You may be right in that the IX Marks article, and my reactions to it, are more focused upon altar calls done “badly.” Indeed, it is a practice that seems a bit prone to abuse, misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and confusion.
But the freedom is still there, Peter … obviously. And I respect the decision of any preacher to use a methodology that he finds effective. Indeed, a fellow preacher who fills in for me on occasion insists on using an altar call, and I do not prohibit him from doing so. But, invariably, the scant number of people who have responded to such a call in our worship services are people of a lifelong Baptist background (coming forward for prayer), not the unchurched or newly churched.
Anyhow, that’s all I’ve got to say about that.
November 1, 2007 at 8:14 am
Geoff,
Thanks for the response. First, it is possible that I misunderstood your reasoning. Granted. But how you lump ‘motives’ in there as well, Geoff, strikes me as kneejerk at best. Could you please site for me, from the words I used, that which questions your motives for writing your series?
Second, regardless of the one or two points of disagreements you offer thus far, which, I must add, do nothing to negate Alexander’s basic thrust in his post, your overwhelming adherence toward the package of reasons he offers has heretofore demonstrated your strong agreement with him. Or am I misreading that, Geoff? I am willing to be corrected.
Thus, in your opening to this series, you write: “In it [Alexander's paper] he explains nine solid reasons why the altar call should not be practiced”
You further repeatedly state “I fear” altar calls, among other things:
With such an overwhelming array of inherent difficulties altar calls possess, no great wonder you set the series up, Geoff, with “solid reasons why the altar call should not be practiced.” Again, from my end of the street, you leaped from lamenting those who question your decision to forego altar calls to judging the invalidity of employing altar calls altogether–from a “what is” to a “what ought to be”
As for the chiding remarks, Geoff, I thought I made that plain earlier. The idea that somehow those who employ altar calls are peddling a salvation message of ‘praying a prayer’, ’signing a card’, ‘walking the aisle’ or worst still, ’substituting works for true faith in Christ’ is both chiding as well as offending every Gospel Church in your area who employs the traditional altar call at the end of the worship hour.
And, for the record, I most certainly did not write that your response was an “attack” upon others’ position. That’s your term, not mine.
Finally, Geoff, you write: “why must one present a biblical “case” to prove why they choose not to hold to a practice that, apparently, has little or no foundation in Scripture? How can I point out the “non-verse” that speaks to the “non-event” in the Bible called an altar call? That makes no sense.”
No sense? To insist, my Brother Geoff, that others make a Biblical case for their method of calling men to Christ and plead that they themselves are under no compulsion to do so is too funny for words.
The fact is, there is no ‘regulative principle’ revealed in Scripture that dictates for us precisely how to implement public invitations any more than there are regulative principles revealed about what time we meet or how we do Bible Study organization. There exists also, at my last count, Geoff, several ‘non-verses’ about your evangelism strategy to focus on the ‘under forty crowd’.
Thus, a better approach, at least from my perspective, is to focus on the freedom to call people publicly to Christ employing methods that appear to be compatible with where one is rather than insulting the integrity of thousands of godly Pastors and faithful Gospel Churches who still find altar calls an enriching resource for both evangelism and spiritual renewal. I wish you only the best in your own approach you’ve found relates best to the community you find yourself in. God be glorified in it.
I asked several questions in my last comment you failed to consider. That’s perfectly all right. Perhaps another day…perhaps with coffee in hand…
Grace today. With that, I am…
Peter
November 1, 2007 at 8:27 am
Peter,
That would be cool … the coffee thing.
But I suppose I’m still having trouble figuring out why holding to a position on an issue and making a case for that position is akin to, as you say, “…insulting the integrity of thousands of godly Pastors and faithful Gospel Churches who still find altar calls an enriching resource for both evangelism and spiritual renewal.”
I think that is, most definitely, an over-reaction. I am reasonably sure (actually, quite sure) that some might be in disagreement with some of the positions that you have taken on issues and published in a similar forum. But should those be interpreted as an attack upon anyone’s integrity? I don’t think so, and I would never chastise you for such action. The only integrity that I find offended, at this moment … in this current exchange … is my own. But that’s OK, been there and done that.
Also, you said to me, “To insist, my Brother Geoff, that others make a Biblical case for their method of calling men to Christ and plead that they themselves are under no compulsion to do so is too funny for words.” Huh? Obviously, I have never once denigrated the call for evangelism in our churches. Such call is an essential part of my life and ministry. I have merely analyzed a single, cultural, and (from an historical standpoint) relatively recent method of doing so … namely, the altar call. In the end, I simply chose alternate methodologies. I suppose you won’t find most of the strategies that we employ today in the Scriptures. And that’s EXACTLY my point. To each his own. Freedom, as you say. Indeed. And I think I made that abundantly clear in my welcoming of an “invitation” by a guest preacher in my own church. I recognize and welcome such freedom.
I quite think that all of us hold positions or views that others may find offensive. So be it. In the essentials, unity. In the non-essentials, liberty. But in all things, charity. Maybe that last one is the one we all need to work on.
Good Romney post today, BTW.
November 1, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Geoff,
Okay, I have been reading and am not sure at all what your “original” premise truly is.
1. It may be that you are simply trying to overcome the idea that some may say you are not a good baptist if you do not have one.
2. It may be that you are trying to address altar call abuses.
3. It may be that you are arguing against the use of altar calls period.
If it is the first, then truly I can stand with you and say this is merely preference. Some churches have communion every month, some every week, some quarterly to which I would say, is a matter of preference and even possibly conscience. I do not at all believe you are advocating preaching without persuasion or calling for responses. You can correct me if I am wrong.
If it is the second, then I would agree that abuses of the altar call have taken place and that I have even observed a few, not many, that would in my opinion be considered to have crossed the line. But not because any preacher I ever heard taught that walking the aisle saved someone. But rather, they used progressive invitation wherein they asked people to raise their hands with no one looking, that they would not be embarrassed and then the preacher turns around and says, if you have raised your hand, you need to come forward. That, in my opinion, is an abuse. And so if you believe that the altar call has been abused in your church, then it may be appropriate to discontinue it there.
If it is the third,I would have serious reservations about totally tossing it out. First, to presume that all altar calls are abusive would have to be substantiated. Second, your higher obligation in this area would be to debate the doctrine of the atonement with said preachers that believe walking the aisle saves a person. Third, although, the altar call may not be an explicit Biblical commandment, the call to obedience surely is and the altar call can be viewed as such a time to respond to the message.
My practice with the invitation, I do not use the words altar call, is precisely that. I use it as a time for people to respond in a public way to what they have heard. If they have trusted Jesus by faith to be their Savior, then the invitation is a time to make that profession public. If a listener has questions about salvation, they are encouraged to come forward and to speak with me about it and pray. At that point, sometimes, another time for extended conversation is planned. For others, it has simply been a matter of hearing the Gospel one on one and then they may or may not respond. Other people use the time to ask for simple advice about applying what they have heard to a specific situation to which they are dealing and want prayer about that. But at no time could it ever be said that I have preached, taught or insinuated that walking the aisle or praying a rote prayer saves. In all reality, if this is your argument, I see it as more of a straw man approach.
It is possible that your premise is an amalgam of all three of these or even none of these. However, I would be interested in what your basic premise is.
Since you do no presently know me, at least that I am aware of, my motives in pursuing this are in trying to understand what your foundational premise is and in no way am I looking for a fight. I’ve got enough people in my church I could do that with.
November 1, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Luke,
None of the above … though I would include a “smidgin” of #’s 1 and 2.
I am by no means arguing for preaching without persuasion or decision. Glad you picked that up.
My basic premise is that what we know in traditional Baptist life as an “altar call” or “invitation” is not a necessary ingredient to a complete service of worship. Truly, there are some who would claim that without such “public” acknowledgment,one cannot be saved. I have had some pastors express that sentiment directly to me. I simply disagree with it. I consider one’s baptism a more than adequate public stand for Christ.
My series of brief posts citing the IX Marks article has been offered to back up my position(decision to not use such a method)with a few sound theological and ideological arguments. The pointing out of the possibilities of abuse and overall misunderstanding of the method has simply been part of that process, not the totality of it.
It’s that simple. No great theological, public call to abolish the altar call. As I wrote in my last comment, “liberty in the non-essentials.”
But I do have my views. This is my forum for expressing such views. I thought that this discussion might be interesting.
November 1, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Geoff,
Thank you for your response. It enables me, in my mind, to adequately respond to your post now.
I am curious as to why the altar call would be jettisoned then, simply because of abuse by some(whoever those boogers are). Rather than throw it out, why not address its abuses and then seek to use it in a positive sense. If we are worried about abuse, shouldn’t we be addressing those abusers and calling them to account for adding to the Gospel? Shouldn’t we be seeking to correct them(Biblically) where they are adding other steps to salvation? I can agree that abuses need to be addressed but what I gather from the posts you are quoting from is that the altar call in complete should not be used. I’ll have to go read it again. But that is the idea that I am getting from these guys. As I have stated, I have seen invitations mishandled but I certainly have never heard a SB preacher say that walking forward during the altar call in a church setting is necessary for salvation and I have never heard a SB preacher say that a rote prayer is necessary for salvation. In fact, I’ve heard just the opposite. Pastor’s exhorting the people to respond with their hearts and not with their lips.
The fact that some abuse cars is not going to get me not to use mine. The fact that some abuse fishing poles is not going to get me to quit using mine. And if calling people to make a public expression of their faith in Christ is unnerving to them, then it is they that should be addressed, not the call to publicly identify with Jesus. Joshua even considered a public expression of one’s faith to be a relevant concept. Choose ye this day. Either serve God or go serve the gods. Do one or the other.
Thank you for answering my post.
November 1, 2007 at 2:39 pm
But Luke … you didn’t address my premise, my brother. It seems that you mostly just ignored it.
You jumped to your “Possibility #3″ – the call to abolish the “altar call,” even though I clearly elucidated that such was neither my desire nor my intent.
Furthermore, abuse is not the only difficulty that I associate with the “altar call.” I have also addressed the possible misunderstanding by those who respond to one (i.e. substitution of works for repentance/faith). Does not the barrage of “re-dedications” and “re-baptisms” in Baptist life indicate possible evidence of faulty understanding in this area?
Anyhow, let me say again for the sake of clarity (quoting from comment #8):
“My basic premise is that what we know in traditional Baptist life as an “altar call” or “invitation” is not a necessary ingredient to a complete service of worship.”
… and …
“No great theological, public call to abolish the altar call. As I wrote in my last comment, “liberty in the non-essentials.””
I don’t know how to express myself more clearly than that.
Luke, I genuinely appreciate your interaction and “keeping me on my toes.” You know … the whole “iron sharpening iron” thing.
November 1, 2007 at 3:24 pm
G’day Geoff,
WOW… you sure got your discussion going….
Good comments all the way around…
Of course, there are always the abuses of the public call to repentance and faith, and there are also the very appropriate public calls to repentance and faith. (I hate that term “altar call”… there is only one altar that counts and that is in heaven, where Jesus’ blood pleads for me)
I guess going through the book of Acts, we would see several examples of public calls to public repentance and faith:
Acts 2:37 When they heard this, they were pierced to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles: “Brothers, what must we do?” 38 “Repent,” Peter said to them, “and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” 40 And with many other words he testified and strongly urged them, saying, “Be saved from this corrupt generation!” 41 So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about 3,000 people were added to them.
I would guess that this was a very public movement.
Acts 16:5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith and were increased in number daily.
I wonder how they measured the daily increase…I guess it was public decisions.
Acts 17:4 Then some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, including a great number of God-fearing Greeks, as well as a number of the leading women.
It looks like a public decision here… now obviously it doesn’t mean that they “walked the aisle in the Synagogue”, but it probably dies mean that Paul said something like “If you want this Messiah to be your personal Saviour, meet me outside”
Or “If you have made the Lord Jesus Christ your personal Saviour meet me outside.”
Or.. “guys we’re gonna get stoned for this.. come and stand by me!”
Perhaps Paul said, “If you have believed, meet me at the river and we’ll sort this baptism thing out straight away!” this would appear to be indicated in
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed the Lord, along with his whole household; and many of the Corinthians, when they heard, believed and were baptized.
Somehow these people publicly identified themselves at conversion with Paul and the disciples as they identified themselves with the gospel.
I think the last is probably indicated in Acts 17:32 When they heard about resurrection of the dead, some began to ridicule him. But others said, “We will hear you about this again.” 33 So Paul went out from their presence. 34 However, some men joined him and believed, among whom were Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them.
Some publicly identified thmeselves as Christians by sorting out sinful practices through an act of public repentance:
Acts 19:18 And many who had become believers came confessing and disclosing their practices, 19 while many of those who had practiced magic collected their books and burned them in front of everyone. So they calculated their value, and found it to be 50,000 pieces of silver. 20 In this way the Lord’s message flourished and prevailed.
Perhaps this was similar to the revival movement in Nehemiah 9:36 Here we are today, slaves in the land You gave our ancestors so that they could enjoy its fruit and its goodness. Here we are—slaves in it! 37 Its abundant harvest goes to the kings You have set over us, because of our sins. They rule over our bodies and our livestock as they please. We are in great distress. 38 In view of all this, we are making a binding agreement in writing on a sealed document [containing the names of]our leaders, Levites, and priests.
Bottom line.. I think there are varieties of reasons that the Spirit of God has given for public acts linked to personal salvation.
I think there are many ways these public acts can be abused.
I think that the abuses should not cause us to neglect what God may be doing in a certain place at a certain time.
I think we should be prepared to work with the Lord when He brings a public movement upon His people.
I think we should be discerning as to what is a true movement of God, and what is actually our own “carnal” desires for a work of the Spirit of God (and I know I have opened a can of worms by using that term
and that description… sometimes we so desire a work of God that we read into human manipulation a work of God ).
Just one other comment Geoff.
The quote in the main section “This confusion encourages people to base their assurance on a one-time event. The aisle walked or prayer prayed becomes a false stone of remembrance they look back on to assure themselves despite their lack of growth or blatantly sinful lifestyle. Yet the Bible tells us to base our assurance not on a prayer prayed or an aisle walked in the increasingly distant past. It tells us to look at our present and increasing love for others (1John 4:8, 20), the present and increasing holiness of our lifestyles (Matt 7:15-27; Heb 12:14; 1John 3:7-8), and the present and increasing orthodoxy of our doctrine (Gal 1:6-9; 2Tim 4:3; 1John 4:2-3; 15).”
Whilst these are the outward demonstrations of an inward work of the Holy Spirit, our personal assurance MUST NOT be based upon these inwward graces (or works) but rather on the atoning sacrifice of our Saviour. And yes, this is the once for all thing.
If God should say “why should I let you into my heaven?” I hope your answer will ever be “Christ died for my sins according to the scriptures..”
The inward graces testify to the right locus of our faith.. and our faith is in Christ alone…
Well Geoff, you’ve have drawn out many thoughts. The Lord bless you Bro.
Steve
November 1, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Steve,
Excellent expositions all! Interestingly, most of the public references that you cite include a baptism. There is a decision made through repentance and faith, then the person is identified through Christ in baptism.
That is largely our approach at my church. And as you have seen in my previous posts, we like to make baptism VERY public!
And that’s a good catch on the quote from the article. Our faith is in Jesus, not the outward signs of following Him. Very true.
Yet the sign of a true believer is faithfulness and perseverance to the end. To God be the glory!
Blessings, my friend.
Geoff
November 1, 2007 at 4:04 pm
I’m sorry that my response seems like it ignores your premise. However, I was interacting with the quote you used from 9 Marks. It seems to me that they are arguing for the abolition of the altar call.
As far as the pew sitters faulty understanding of the altar call, I would lay the blame upon either poor communication from the pulpit or poor listening in the pew but not on a false assumption of the altar call. I really do not believe that there are any Southern Baptist preachers advocating that in order to be saved, one must walk the aisle of a Southern Baptist church during an altar call.
I do not know how to do smileys here but rest assured, I am smiling. I get quite a kick out of internet blogging misunderstandings as it forces all of us to seek to articulate what exactly it is we are trying to say.
And for the record, I do not think that you are unbaptist or unchristian if you do not have altar calls per se in your church. Though I would dare to split hairs with you and say that anytime you preach with persuasion for decision, someone may be, as Steve as said, be responding to the Altar Call from above.
Good day my new blogger friend. That may be a little presumptuous but I see you not as my enemy concerning this. I’m off to a high school football game that will decide the district champ.
November 2, 2007 at 10:07 am
Luke,
I’m glad you said your piece.
Yes, it does appear that the IX Marks fellow may be calling for doing away with altar calls. But I just used his points as a starting place for my posts and discussion. That’s all.
Holler back soon…
November 3, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Geoff,
I am not a fan of the “altar call” (is there still an altar in today’s churches?) either. It probably has more to do with what is communicated vs. it’s intended purpose.
The abuse and misunderstanding people get is probably because they’ve been told something like “come forward and pray to receive Jesus” or “come and ask Jesus into your heart” or something along those lines. The act of faith is put in the place that it comes “after” one walks or prays or asks, etc. As if one can’t believe as they are in the pew.
A proposed solution is to present the Gospel and then ask that anyone who has come to faith in Christ as Lord and Savior to come forward so that all may rejoice. Something along those lines.
We believe in salvation by grace through faith, but seem to have a hard time preaching it. Who is going to come forward if they haven’t all ready believed?
Steve,
You gave examples of “public decision” (I don’t like the word “decision” in this context). As I looked those Scriptures there may have been some very public professions of faith, but that seems to be a result of where the Gospel was preached rather than a requirement or method. What Crispus’ house really public?
Is corporate worship considered public? This altar call discussion is akin to what takes place in corporate worship if I’m not mistaken. Instead of arguing for “public” professions inside the worship service why not use those Scriptures to argue for our need to take the Gospel to synagogues and public venues?
Measuring the daily increase in believers doesn’t mean the counting was done because of publicity. Luke in writing Acts was also directly involved in the ministry so he’s going to be writing from the front lines. This makes it even tougher to really nail down the extent of the publicity of the events.
Thanks for the dialogue,
Mark
p.s. Geoff, maybe you could do another series on why preachers call people specifically to the “altar” to pray or for re-dedication, etc. This seems to place the “altar” or steps in a sort of category of “holy ground”.
November 3, 2007 at 11:30 pm
mmmmmmmmm I don’t know, Mark, but I preach the gospel wherever I can get a hearing.. some places are suitable to call for a public confession of faith (at the funerals of church members, scripture in High schools as I outlined in a previous comment) some are not suitable (at the funerals of the lost, at the graveside… they tend to fall in the hole! , or at a wedding, as they get lost in the bridal party)
I have never found that the church meeting was the sacred ground for preaching the gospel, ’cause its so hard to get the lost inside, they think the wall’s will fall in on them. I had a forebear who preached the gospel on pirate ships .. he was a captain, and the crew had better be there twice a day or they got to swim home! I believe when he called people forward to repent they came often!!
I’ve preached the gospel in a woolshed, theatres, school halls, a cenotaph, homes, a swimming pool, beside rivers, ocean beaches, caravan parks, tents, garages, factory sheds, off the back of a truck, retirement chapels, firesides etc etc, but I have never preached it in a synagogue or a mosque, although a friend of mine has preached the gospel in a synagogue service. As there were less than ten men, he thought it inappropriate to have an “altar call” or a shtender call. I think he may have pushed the envelope too far to do so. But in the end, how do you number someone or name someone as having been converted there and then if there is not some mechanism by which they may tell you? I don’t think Paul had a set of “check the box forms” printed up at each place. I am not sure that he said after the service, like I do, “If today you realise you need to accept the Lord as your Saviour please see me after the service because I have a booklet I want to give you” ’cause I don’t think he had a “2 ways to live” booklet to give away!
You’re guess is as good as mine how he “registered their decisions”, but it appears he did.
Steve
November 4, 2007 at 3:48 pm
The issue is not whether the organ played Just As I am, as folks came forward in 1st century Palestine, but whether people were called upon in some way to make public their conversion. I wonder whether the prolific use of the baptistry in prechristian judaism meant that public repentance, and public declarations were somehow normative within the psyche of Judaism, as it was normative in Gentile culture with the cult of the Emperor… Perhaps it was not such a big deal for them to make public declarations as it is in our culture with our intense cultural privatisation and individualism.
Australia is essentially English in its traditions and generally non responsive in the pew to outward demonstrations. We are much more wary of the “altar call” public response, than you guys are there in the USA.
STeve
November 4, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Steve,
Good things to think about. I wish we were more wary of the “altar call” like you folks overseas. I’ve listened to some of Paul Washer’s sermons and he’s said that many Christians outside the USA would not even recognize us as Christians just based on how we live.
My main point was basically related to what you said here.
The issue is not whether the organ played Just As I am, as folks came forward in 1st century Palestine, but whether people were called upon in some way to make public their conversion.
That is, in the examples you gave, were people actually being called upon to specifically make public declarations? If not, then why do some put so much emphasis on it during the altar call?
Maybe the thought process is that people will make a stronger or more faithful “decision” if something physical and public is involved? I don’t know, but my suspicious is in that area.
I have another example of something in this area of going to the altar that, upon observation, seems that it could be a way of unintentionally manipulating people. Sorry, I don’t mean to question the intent of some folks, but I’m not sure what words to use.
Anyways, I don’t want to hijack this thread with that right now. Maybe if Geoff does some posts on calling people forward for “renewal” and such.
Thanks brother,
Mark
November 5, 2007 at 7:20 am
JohnMark,
Thanks for the good comments. Feel free to “hijack” away.
As long as we are close to the original topic, I’m good with it.
The issue of where there is actually an “altar” in our churches is an interesting one to explore.
Geoff
November 5, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Steve,
For some reason your Nov. 3 comment was “spammed.” I just found it in my spam folder and released it. Sorry for my negligence.
November 5, 2007 at 9:49 pm
JohnMark: you asked (I assume rhetorically?) “Who is going to come forward if they haven’t all ready believed?”
This is my understanding of an “altar call”. It gives opportunity for the person who has believed the preaching of the Gospel to respond to that Gospel and why shouldn’t it be a part of the worship for that person to come forward and let the believers know? It seems the perfect place to me. Having been justified in a pew through the working of the Holy Spirit in Christ, I had no problem understanding as a brand new convert that I was simply making public what had already happened in my heart. I just don’t get all the discouraging words from Christians who want to weaken the purpose of ministers of the Gospel affording this opportunity for all.
Don’t know if you read my post at sbcImpact on “OL’ TIME RELIGION” and where I tried in laywomen’s words to present what I feel addresses some of ways the altar originated and the purpose it held from the beginning in Genesis. selahV
November 23, 2007 at 1:16 pm
[...] Geoff Baggett, at his own blog, gives us part 4 of his series entitled, Altar Call Confusion. In this installment, he focuses on how Altar Calls can give a false assurance. [...]