# The Altar Call



## Blue Tick

Obviously there is no biblical support for a church to use an altar call, so since it really isn't biblical, what are the negative implications of a church applying this technique?


----------



## gwine

I went to a Church of the Nazarene years ago, and altar calls were quite common. I think the biggest negative was the fact that it encouraged a works/righteousness mentality. Every week and during revivals we were getting hammered with the fact that we've backslidden - again - because we sinned - again - and we needed to get right with God or we would lose our salvation.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Blue Tick said:


> Obviously there is no biblical support for a church to use an altar call, so since it really isn't biblical, what are the negative implications of a church applying this technique?



Can you say SYNERGISM? Implementing non biblical practices only provides for occasion to implement _more_ non biblical practices. It is semi-Pelagian and Arminian to the core.


----------



## Herald

Blue Tick said:


> Obviously there is no biblical support for a church to use an altar call, so since it really isn't biblical, what are the negative implications of a church applying this technique?



This really is no argument for or against an altar call. There are many..._*many*_ things in the church that are not biblical, yet they are practiced. The question is not whether a thing is biblical, rather is that thing is consistent with biblical teaching. To argue a position otherwise is to adopt the ostrich mentality.


----------



## Scott Bushey

BaptistInCrisis said:


> This really is no argument for or against an altar call. There are many..._*many*_ things in the church that are not biblical, yet they are practiced. The question is not whether a thing is biblical, rather is that thing is consistent with biblical teaching. To argue a position otherwise is to adopt the ostrich mentality.



Bill,
Please tell this 'ostrich' what 'things' you speak of that we practice that are anti-biblical so that I may repent of them?


http://www.semperreformanda.com/decision.htm


----------



## ADKing

BaptistInCrisis said:


> This really is no argument for or against an altar call. There are many..._*many*_ things in the church that are not biblical, yet they are practiced. The question is not whether a thing is biblical, rather is that thing is consistent with biblical teaching. To argue a position otherwise is to adopt the ostrich mentality.



If a so-called "altar call" is being used as an element of worship it most certainly does require biblical prescription (by express command, deduction from good and necessary consequence or approved example). It is a question of the regulative principle of worship. 

It always amazes me how proponents of the altar call, who usually claim to be evangelical, nevertheless continue to use the language of an altar. Protestants do not/should not have altars to be called to.


----------



## Blue Tick

BaptistInCrisis said:


> This really is no argument for or against an altar call. There are many..._*many*_ things in the church that are not biblical, yet they are practiced. The question is not whether a thing is biblical, rather is that thing is consistent with biblical teaching. To argue a position otherwise is to adopt the ostrich mentality.



This is a little vague as to _*many*_ things in church which are practiced. What would you identify as _*many[*/I] but are practiced in church?

According to your statement we would have to ask it this way: Is the altar call consistent with biblical teaching?_


----------



## inspector

I am against the common use of an alter call. It is annoying when a Pastor or the visiting evangelist makes people stand there and sing just as I am under your breath for 10 times.

I am under the impression that the purpose of the invitation is for the fullfillment of Romans 10:9ff. Now days it is obviously been abused and perverted.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Altar calls, in my estimation, are POISON. They are poison to the Gospel itself.

Why?

I'll leave aside the issue of the RPW. It is no small thing that it is an element that is not commanded by the Word of God. That is a huge thing in and of itself and even more huge that this element is added to support something that undermines the Gospel itself.

With respect to the altar call as a call to repentance, I suppose solid Gospel understanding might repair some of the danger here if it was used solely to ask those who believe to come forward. Its history, however, is bound up with Finney's idea that the important thing was to get men to a point of emotional crisis. Men's hearts, according to Finney, were not fallen but merely stubborn. It was the preacher's job to convince and cajole to get a man to make that commitment. I don't think baptizing a faulty practice can ever fully undo bad theology which is what Finney had. Finney is downright Pelagian and his theology was from the very pit of hell.

If altar calls merely left off at the point of a true Gospel call and saying believe upon Christ then I might not be so violently against them. It is the second use of Altar Calls that is virtually identical to the Roman Catholic practice of Penance in my estimation.

Altar calls are used primarily for the members of the Church who have already been baptized. The point of the Altar Call for them is to "rededicate themselves" to the Lord. If a member hasn't been walking in the way that he should go then the Altar Call is intended for them to come forward and tell God that they're now going to dedicate themselves to getting it right. This is pure nonsense and a false Gospel.

1. For the man who thinks he need not come forward, if the theology is correct that we need to rededicate ourselves then the whole Church should be coming forward at the altar call. The process has the effect of depressing the standard of righteousness required by the Gospel. It depresses the weight of the Law and completely obscures what Christ has accomplished. In other words, there are people who feel like "I've been getting it right so I need not come forward." It encourages self-righteousness.

2. For the person that comes forward, they don't understand the Gospel either. They didn't understand it the first time they received it. The Altar Call holds out the Law (a weakened verson of it) and says "Did you fulfill it?" Even in the counterfeit version of the Law, the Altar Call makes some feel guilty enough to know that they didn't accomplish it but they never understand that Christ did. The person that comes forward is now coming forward to vow to accomplish a counterfeit version of the Law and saying "I've got to do this to be accepted by God...."

The whole thing is so wicked. I hate it with every fiber of my being. It is the worst part about going to Church at an SBC. It makes me sad every time I see it.


----------



## elnwood

Altar calls are usually problematic, but I think it can be done right. I don't think an altar call is intrinsically Arminian or (Semi-)Pelagian.

I would be all right with it if the following were included (not exhaustive):
1. The sinner is shown to be sinful and lost to hell without Christ.
2. Christ is preached crucified and resurrected as a substitute.
3. The sinners are called to faith and repentance.
4. It is made clear that walking the aisle, raising a hand, saying a prayer, etc. is not what saves or assurance that one is saved, i.e. no saying "Congratulations, welcome to the Kingdom of God" after saying a prayer.
5. There aren't plants in the congregation who come forward or raise their hand as if they have just been saved in order to prompt others to do likewise.

Altar calls are useful to the pastors and congregation to identify those who are in crisis so that they can pray for them and minister to them. Often, calls to come forward also include anyone in the congregation, Christian or not, who needs prayer. I don't think anyone here would dispute that identifying people who need prayer, and then praying for their needs, does not belong in a worship service. But I could be wrong.


----------



## Scott Bushey

elnwood said:


> Altar calls are usually problematic, but I think it can be done right. I don't think an altar call is intrinsically Arminian or (Semi-)Pelagian.
> 
> I would be all right with it if the following were included (not exhaustive):
> 1. The sinner is shown to be sinful and lost to hell without Christ.
> 2. Christ is preached crucified and resurrected as a substitute.
> 3. The sinners are called to faith repentance.
> 4. It is made clear that walking the aisle, raising a hand, saying a prayer, etc. is not what saves or assurance that one is saved, i.e. no saying "Congratulations, welcome to the Kingdom of God" after saying a prayer.
> 5. There aren't plants in the congregation who come forward or raise their hand as if they have just been saved in order to prompt others to do likewise.
> 
> Altar calls are useful to the pastors and congregation to identify those who are in crisis so that they can pray for them and minister to them. Often, calls to come forward also include anyone in the congregation, Christian or not, who needs prayer. I don't think anyone here would dispute that identifying people who need prayer, and then praying for their needs, does not belong in a worship service. But I could be wrong.



I've never been in a congregation that didn't have needs; the need to have an altar call to facilitate the concept of prayer is not germane to a move of the Spirit. I don't need anyone to tell me that the members of this board have prayerful needs. 

In regards to your statement about _it_ not being Arminian: Why tell men to do anything but sit there and call on God to rescue their soul if it be His will?


----------



## Pergamum

Many of the past evangelists that we are endeared to have pushed for "commitment to Christ" or "closing with Christ" very hard in their sermons. 

They would even cry and plead for sinners and these men were thoroughly calvinistic. 

But still, there was no need for a public act to seal the deal. Even these men did not use the altar call. Their whole sermon was not a dry theological lecture but an appeal to repent of sins and close with Christ. 


A preacher ought to push hard for commitment and show the need for fleeing to Christ. This is not manipulation or Finneyism, but is modeled after the NT.





I had a Baptist preacher tell me that altar calls were necessary for the public proclamation of their faith in Christ. WHen I asked him then what baptism was for, he could not reply (he looked as if the lightbulb just went off).

It has become the 3rd Protestant Sacrament; baptism, the Lord's Supper and the Altar Call.





Now...

I have been in calvinistic churches that preached against the altar call in a theological lecture format, or have preached without any appeal to the souls of men - and this is almost as bad. 

I thought it ironic that one fellow I heard took an hour to bash the evils of the altar call and yet spoke nothing of the need to close with Christ (i.e. there was more of Christ being preached in most altar calls than in his sermon against it).

These men, I guess, were so afriad of the altar call, that they said nothing at all about the beleiver's duties to repent and believe and there was no appeal of any sort. This, too, ought not to be.


----------



## turmeric

At our church, when the it's time for the Table, after it is fenced, those who wish to pray with someone are invited to pray with the pastor. Also, we have prayers printed on the bulletin as aids for people who wish to pray during the communion rather than to partake. These people are encouraged to remain in the sanctuary and pray rather than to leave.


----------



## Herald

Scott Bushey said:


> Bill,
> Please tell this 'ostrich' what 'things' you speak of that we practice that are anti-biblical so that I may repent of them?
> 
> 
> http://www.semperreformanda.com/decision.htm



Scott, in retrospect I probably should have used different terminology instead of using the word "unbiblical." Allow me the opportunity to amend my comments. What I meant to say is that there are practices in the church that are not directly commanded by scripture. This does not mean that they violate scriptural principles, they are just not commanded by chapter and verse. I realize this is why some churches observe the regulative principle. But even then ones ecclesiology will effect ones view of the regulative principle. I apologize if I caused anyone distress by inferring they were unbiblical.

Now, as to the altar call. My church does not use the altar call per se. We do not seek to tug on peoples heart strings to have them come down the aisle and make some sort of public confession. I have been in attendance at altar calls where the guilt has been laid on thick. This is Finney's anxious seat at work and I believe _*that*_ is unbiblical. It springs forth from a deficient pneumatology and soteriology. But does this mean that all forms of altar calls violate scriptural principle? In our church we have sort of a call of response at the end of the worship service. Anyone who wishes may go to the back of the church (notice that we do not ask people to come to the front in some sort of pageantry) if they would like an elder or trained lay person to pray with them. We recognize that the Holy Spirit can do a mighty work in the heart of a person sitting under the teaching of God's word. There is no guilt trip...no playing "Without one plea" a dozen times. Is our practice unbiblical? I suppose some of you will say that it is. But the real question is whether any type of invitation or altar call is unbiblical. Just because some have abused a practice does not make the practice wrong.


----------



## Scott Bushey

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Scott, in retrospect I probably should have used different terminology instead of using the word "unbiblical." Allow me the opportunity to amend my comments. What I meant to say is that there are practices in the church that are not directly commanded by scripture. This does not mean that they violate scriptural principles, they are just not commanded by chapter and verse. I realize this is why some churches observe the regulative principle. But even then ones ecclesiology will effect ones view of the regulative principle. I apologize if I caused anyone distress by inferring they were unbiblical.
> 
> Now, as to the altar call. My church does not use the altar call per se. We do not seek to tug on peoples heart strings to have them come down the aisle and make some sort of public confession. I have been in attendance at altar calls where the guilt has been laid on thick. This is Finney's anxious seat at work and I believe _*that*_ is unbiblical. It springs forth from a deficient pneumatology and soteriology. But does this mean that all forms of altar calls violate scriptural principle? In our church we have sort of a call of response at the end of the worship service. Anyone who wishes may go to the back of the church (notice that we do not ask people to come to the front in some sort of pageantry) if they would like an elder or trained lay person to pray with them. We recognize that the Holy Spirit can do a mighty work in the heart of a person sitting under the teaching of God's word. There is no guilt trip...no playing "Without one plea" a dozen times. Is our practice unbiblical? I suppose some of you will say that it is. But the real question is whether any type of invitation or altar call is unbiblical. Just because some have abused a practice does not make the practice wrong.



Bill,
I wouldn't call what your church does an _altar call_. Personally, the bible has explicit examples of invitations, i.e. Peter in Acts; The error comes when the preacher requests a visible response to that invitation other than an immediate baptism. I wonder why churches don't do the immediate baptism? For sure it could be an appropriate Presbyterian principle!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Given our habit of beating up on Reformed practice whenever we're criticizing another unbibilical practice, I think it's important to distinguish between an Altar Call and a preacher calling men to believe upon the Gospel.

Nobody here is arguing against the idea that part of the presentation of the Gospel ought to be a "Believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." The Gospel itself is a command, a pleading, to men that they are under the wrath of God and that He has sent His Son to save all that would believe upon Him.

But that's not what an Altar Call is primarily. The majority practice, used in thousands upon thousands of Churches has its roots in revivalism. If a Church has a variation that is scarcely connected in practice or in doctrine to what is properly called an Altar Call then it's not really an Altar Call. There's no point in wrangling over unique variations that exist in each Church.

I will say, however, that any Church that practices the form of the Altar Call ought to reconsider the practice altogether even if they change the content and the doctrine. Besides the problem of the RPW having a portion of Worship that focuses on the individual rather than the work of God, there is the problem of those that retain the vain superstition from Arminian congregations. Put another way, some of the Reformers rejected certain practices and decorations in the immediate wake of the Reformation not because they were inherently harmful but because they reminded the people too much of the Church of Rome that they had just left. I don't think there should be any confusion offerred by solid Churches. The Altar Call is an abominable practice and we ought not even imitate its form in my estimation so there's no confusion introduced.


----------



## non dignus

There are lots of negatives here.

1. It's sacerdotalism. The preacher/altar insinuates himself as a mediator.

2. It's public street corner 'righteousness'. 

3. As a liturgical form it is penance and reaching up to God as Eve reached up for the fruit.

Instead, God is descending the pulpit by word and sacrament and reaching out to us.


----------



## Larry Hughes

John,

The issue is not even really synergism. It's the difference in communicating a "to do" and "Giving News" to be received by nothing more than opening our beggars bag up to be filled. Luther said we are all beggars, I think the modern translation that hits MORE home of that concept is that; we are all moochers, yes this is true, pure moochers. That is a very superficial problem with it. In a nut shell it is antigospel, anticross and antichrist to the hilt. It is altogether another religion. Synergism is a part of that but the issue needs spelled out a lot more than that for it obscures the cross at the end of the day and delivers another gospel to the ear. 

When a close Baptist elder preacher friend/brother of mine dealt with the alter call at his two churches we contemplated what is the right and wrong way to handle it. I say ‘we’ because he and I would try to doctrinally think through it, though I had left the denomination altogether. This could help one better understand the issue at hand. It takes a shepherding approach, because I can recall my first encounter with thinking about it and it took me a long time to understand just why it must go.

What has to be avoided with this and other issues is what we came to call versions of “my law is better than your law” approach. This will always bring in-fighting, when ever we think we are “doing” something better for God, this is what we do, fight and bite and nip at each other. The way some attempt to eliminate it is wrong and merely another version of “my law is better than your law”. This was how Tony’s former church pastor did it and eventually he had to go: Often some pastors/leaders will go back and say, “It’s not biblical in the early church, not in Scripture”…ad nausem. While this is true its approach is superficial and error ridden. It’s really nothing more than a form of restorationism. Restoration movements, big or local, only ‘see’ the superficial and not the deeper Gospel issue. Alter calls should not be eliminated just because they are “later day” ala Finney and not found in the NT (restorationism).

The way my elder friend and the other at their newly planted church handled the alter call was to teach why it covers up the Gospel behind a law. In a way it’s simple to see but hard to understand due to our fallen man within us that always seeks to ‘do’ something. What the alter call does is that it does not leave the Gospel as the last and final word and usurps it. It adds to the end of the service something for the person “to do”. That seemingly harmless little “to do” covers the Gospel up and re-ignites the fallen man into action. It seems so little and so innocuous, yet that’s why Jesus warned against the “yeast of the Pharisees”, it starts out almost invisible like yeast but then balloons. This we see down through the decades since the ‘alter call’ was implemented, the children churches of the alter call. It’s like a bullet that is only a degree off when fired from the gun muzzle, but a mile down the pathway it is entirely off target and now a different fallen religion with “christian/bible” language annexed to it. If you can get them a person/group to see and grasp that the alter call actually denies the free grace of the Gospel FOR THEM, then they will WANT it gone and it will not be ‘my way is better than your way’ or ‘my law is better than your law’.

Ask this question, “What IS the Gospel?” Break it down into two components: 1. What is the nature of “news” as in “Good News”, and 2. What is the content of that GOOD News. That sounds simple and is, but yet herein lies the error of so many things. It’s Good News. News by its very nature is NEVER a ‘to do’ but a report given to one, in this case a GOOD report, Glad Tidings, Wonderful Information and so forth. And the report cannot be undermined later by works or “to dos” if the report is real. “Peace on earth and good will towards all men” BY God to whom we deserve wrath is indeed a GOOD Report to HEAR. There is absolutely NOTHING about ‘doing’ in the Gospel, but rather a report of what was done in utter finality for me 2000+ years ago. The question, “When was I saved.”, is answered but one way, “2000 years ago”, not at some ‘conversion experience’. 

In fact the Gospel is utterly antithetical to doing anything by its very nature, it is given to the receiver. The nature of ‘news’ is one of objective ‘report’ outside of and apart from the receiver, given not just in general but specifically to the receiver. To hear from the doctor, “You don’t have cancer”, is good news, I do nothing but receive it and joy ensues from that report and NOTHING can change it. The content of the Gospel, Good News, is Christ crucified and risen, my sins laid upon Him, His righteousness laid upon me (baptism is our clothing) for all time, no matter how sinful I was, am or will be. To grasp that is to REALLY have the Gospel. That is to truly have the scandal of the Cross. And it must be “for me/you/the hearer” specifically heard/received, if it is not ‘heard’ or received by them as “TO THEM” then they have not in a real sense HEARD the Good News, they’ve only heard about it for others and at a distance (like hearing that another man wins the lottery, what is that to me?). To not hear it specifically or receive it specifically “to me” is to leave a man in his sins and trespasses and in bitterness. That’s the Gospel and that’s the last Word from God any congregation should hear every single week (which alludes to the alter call problem).

However, for the sake of discussion let’s say a preacher happened to preach the true Gospel from a passage then gives the alter call. What has he just done? Is the alter call wrong because the NT church never did it or it’s “not in the bible”? No, that’s restorationism and missing Scripture altogether, reading the bible as a cook book, rank legalism and merit mongering. This is why it’s wrong; it covers the Gospel and in sum total preaches another gospel, another MESSAGE, which is damnable. For example the preacher says in short; “Christ is crucified for you, your sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake and Christ has done all the righteousness necessary”, then he gives the alter call to come. What just transpired? The Gospel was mingled with a “to do” (yeast), faith was just slaughtered by the alter call. Faith nakedly trusts and receives – that’s it. When a ‘to do’ like the alter call or praying a prayer transpires, IMMEDIATELY, the old man (the religions doer) is resurrected into action and if the new man (the naked truster) came about, he is then slain. The person is thrown back upon his/her doing, the coming forward, prayer in earnest or similar such items. This covers up the Cross which is to be beheld nakedly for faith. Why? Because the message is conflicting, one says “this was done already for you”, the other says or at least implies, “you must do this…”. The “to do” is like blocking the view of the bronze serpent to which God called Israel to look at and be saved, which Christ likens to His crucifixion. Any “doing” on our part, alter call, prayer wrestling for salvation, or others does this. It denies Christ by covering Him up and thus denies the Gospel to the believer who constantly needs to hear it. The alter call psychologically and spiritually says, “You must do something, this coming forward”, and that doing denies the Gospel altogether, even if otherwise ‘justification by faith alone’ is affirmed by the congregation/pastor. Because one always will inwardly question “what I do” as to quality, quantity, magnitude, frequency, sincerity and etc…. It will not survive trials and suffering, only the Gospel will. That’s the subtle but deadliness of this small yeast.

The deadliness of the alter call and similar things proves itself out in the undeniable facts within the life of the Christians of today. Those who have at one time or another rested in their coming forward or praying a prayer or thinking they were the operator in their baptism ALWAYS without failure go back to working their way to heaven. Why? Because no peace can EVER be had as long as I think I am the one doing it or did it, biblically prescribed or not (especially if it is not like the alter call for NO promise attends it). Wrath only is seen in it and justly so, because one is openly denying God’s gift, even IN some of His very gifts by calling it ‘my doing’. It’s no surprise at all that those using alter calls and prayer wrestlings and rededications all have in common with Rome a congregation FULL of people working their way to heaven by these same mindless deadly lifeless repetitions and new inventions every so many cycles. It’s no wonder at all that many, like I use to do, re-walk the aisle, re-pray the prayer and other things countless times. It’s merely protestant-Rome. 

Why? Because when the spiritual crisis comes, the trials and spiritual dark sufferings of, “am I really saved, it seems not”, one mentally reflects back upon what one did X years ago, whatever it was, and asks one’s self, with the devil prompting it all, “Did I do it right, enough, with enough affection and dedication and etc…”. That is utterly Satanic religion garbed with Christian and biblical language (the devil is a master at using the Word in a twisted way). That inward gazing is utterly Satanic as is all things that make a person look that way (like alter calls and praying the prayer until I feel saved or similar), its all pagan, it leads away from Christ’s Cross because in all these ways the Cross has been blocked where alone assurance and hope can be authentically and truly had. If one believes the alter call is their moment one will eventually be attacked by Satan, maybe on the death bed and the doubt will come and if it is not over come by the true naked Gospel that person will be lost forever. If one believes in their prayer praying, alter call responses, emotions, dedication, giving their hearts, that baptism is based upon their faith, ANYTHING that is fundamentally when examined a form of “me doing something to gain heaven, giving over to God”, whether prescribed in Scripture (wrong view of a right thing) or no prescribed in Scripture (devil/man made law that is out right to be thrown out), one is not believing in Christ alone. Those are not THE faith at all and the devil WILL most certainly eventually bring that to his court and put one on trial before heaven and earth, perhaps not until the inward suffering of the soul at one’s very own death bed/moment. Then the attorney Satan now armed with the real Law of God, utter love, will say, “In all that you claim you did – did you really DO THIS!” And then you are had unless the Cross comes. 

It is important to recognize that damnation occurs not due to a failure to be capable to intellectually articulate the article of justification, rather by a failure for the one suffering under Satan’s attack failing to find and have for themselves the merciful God. Why so? If Satan shows you only the wrathful God, you will flee God who looks wrathful and run to Satan because the devil then looks like salvation from wrath, the devil becomes an angel of light to the sufferer and looks like god of salvation and the wrathful God looks hopeless. Yet the wrathful God is the very God that is mercy too. The believer must trust even when wrath presents itself, but he/she can ONLY do this if the Cross is behold over and above the wrath. Then and only then will the believer flee, trust, THE God of salvation and then and only then are ALL the devil’s ‘angel of light’ masks truly exposed for what they are -- deception. Beware of the subtle devil’s voice!

But to the one who begins to see that - they just receive the Good News, do nothing, in fact in spite of doing nothing, not even trying to try to do nothing – but nakedly receives the gift given. Thus, his weapon is the Sword of the Spirit from heaven, the Cross of Christ and the devil cannot answer against that. He may indeed attempt to call God a liar but it is false. The irony is that people will manufacture tons of things, alter calls, rededications, re this or that, praying prayers, penance of Promise Keepers or other similar doings but never rest in the Gospel gifts given us. NO man rests in only the naked word, but needs a physical manifestation of the promise to aid his faith. We are not bodiless spirits. But rather than rest where God promises and even gives us a physical thing to aid us, we go on inventing – such is our tendency into the idolatry of ‘knowing good and evil for ourselves’. For example: to the one who sees baptism as God’s hand in providence sovereignly acting through the agency of even an apostate pastor and upon the person regardless of having or not having faith, that it is God’s work and name, not mine or my faith – that baptism is the Holy Spirit – the devil cannot answer the Gospel in that, the devil is rebuked by the name of God in Baptism, its utter Gospel, it’s Cross wielding. He can rage against it, lie about it, try to redefine it, eliminate it and then raise up OTHER things such as alter calls or praying the prayer; all fundamentally forms of the first lie, “hath God really said” and then giving of the fruit of being more pious than God. However, if the believer understands the former and nakedly worklessly receives it, though he/she is weak in the faith; this omnipotent weapon is not vain but the mighty Sword of the Spirit welded by the Spirit through and earthen weak clay pot. It is David with nothing more than a stone and sling against an apparently well armed giant, in weakness I am strong because of the grace of God. It looks weak, it looks foolish to reason, but it is the same Voice that said ‘let there be light’.

That’s how much the alter call and similar “to do” teachings hide and deny Christ. If a man, woman, pastor or congregation sees THAT they will despise it for its Cross denying. I’ll never go back to alter calls because it denies the precious Cross of Christ. Once you see the Gospel truly in a thing and Word and once you see how it is denied by the devil in other things and words, you’ll never relinquish it, even unto a tortuous death or persecutions from so called other “churches” for it alone is life. Why go back to dog’s vomit when wine, milk and honey are freely given!

The way my friend/elder and the other elders addressed the alter call and even the need of elder leadership was this way. They did not say, “It’s how the NT church was”, restorationism. Rather they showed how the alter called denied the Cross and thus puts poison before them and covers their comfort and assurance up; similarly how elders are not “leaders” to rule over you nor necessary just because it was in the NT early church, but that some form of guardianship is needed to hold the Gospel and kill the wolves. The crucial issue though is that the elder/pastor himself MUST understand what he is guarding against, namely ALL things assaulting the Gospel. This presupposes that he really know the nature and content of the Gospel and truly understand repentance and faith. Without this an elder is just another Pharisee and a potential wolf, and blind. 

It all boils down to arming the Christian for suffering, trials and the accusations of the devil in this war on earth for the faith, for the devil NEVER rests. What one gives them will either be poison with Christian sounding and bible quoted phrases ‘called gospel’ or true life giving Gospel. It is as Christ said to the exceptional exegetes of his day, “You search the Scriptures and think that by them you have life, but it is these that continually bear witness of Me.” (John 5:39). Is the Scripture a ‘cook book’ or a revelation.

In Christ alone,

Larry


----------



## Herald

> I will say, however, that any Church that practices the form of the Altar Call ought to reconsider the practice altogether even if they change the content and the doctrine. Besides the problem of the RPW having a portion of Worship that focuses on the individual rather than the work of God, there is the problem of those that retain the vain superstition from Arminian congregations. Put another way, some of the Reformers rejected certain practices and decorations in the immediate wake of the Reformation not because they were inherently harmful but because they reminded the people too much of the Church of Rome that they had just left. I don't think there should be any confusion offerred by solid Churches. The Altar Call is an abominable practice and we ought not even imitate its form in my estimation so there's no confusion introduced.



Rich, out of curiosity would you consider our practice to be problematic?


----------



## Herald

> Besides the problem of the RPW having a portion of Worship that focuses on the individual rather than the work of God,



While the worship service is not about the individual (it is about God), the Holy Spirit is (and does!) able to work in the life of individuals. When a person is convicted of sin is it not the role of the church to come along side the person and help them? I am sure we will all answer "yes". Of course that does not mean we center the worship service on individuals, but I don't believe it is unbiblical to let congregates know that they have access to the elders to address spiritual needs.

Also, I appreciate Rich's explanation of what constitutes an altar call. It has its roots in Finneyism (revivalism) and is alive and well in some circles. I attended the Word of Life Bible Institute in New York (founded by Jack Wyrtzen a contemporary of Billy Graham in mass evangelism). WOL had the altar call down to a science. Jack Wyrtzen used one particular line over and over again when giving the invitation. "If you can't stand up for God in a place like this, you'll never stand up for him anywhere." Wow! Talk about a generous heaping of guilt. That is what I came out of.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rich, out of curiosity would you consider our practice to be problematic?



Not per se Bill. As Scott said, I don't consider it an Altar Call. I think pointing a man to an Elder in Christ who has been placed in contact with the Gospel and believes is a good thing. Spiritual unrest and hunger results from good Gospel preaching so having them talk to an elder is a good thing. I think it's the whole idea of coming forward to _dedicate *onesself*_ that is so odious.


----------



## Irishcat922

Scott Bushey said:


> I've never been in a congregation that didn't have needs; the need to have an altar call to facilitate the concept of prayer is not germane to a move of the Spirit. I don't need anyone to tell me that the members of this board have prayerful needs.
> 
> In regards to your statement about _it_ not being Arminian: Why tell men to do anything but sit there and call on God to rescue their soul if it be His will?





What was that Spurgeon Said in regards to having Alter calls, "I am in my office Tuesday mornings, if they are still having a crisis they can come talk to me then."


----------



## Scott Bushey

Irishcat922 said:


> What was that Spurgeon Said in regards to having Alter calls, "I am in my office Tuesday mornings, if they are still having a crisis they can come talk to me then."




Exactly; That was great!


----------



## Pilgrim

SemperFideles said:


> Altar calls, in my estimation, are POISON. They are poison to the Gospel itself.
> 
> Why?
> 
> I'll leave aside the issue of the RPW. It is no small thing that it is an element that is not commanded by the Word of God. That is a huge thing in and of itself and even more huge that this element is added to support something that undermines the Gospel itself.
> 
> With respect to the altar call as a call to repentance, I suppose solid Gospel understanding might repair some of the danger here if it was used solely to ask those who believe to come forward. Its history, however, is bound up with Finney's idea that the important thing was to get men to a point of emotional crisis. Men's hearts, according to Finney, were not fallen but merely stubborn. It was the preacher's job to convince and cajole to get a man to make that commitment. I don't think baptizing a faulty practice can ever fully undo bad theology which is what Finney had. Finney is downright Pelagian and his theology was from the very pit of hell.
> 
> If altar calls merely left off at the point of a true Gospel call and saying believe upon Christ then I might not be so violently against them. It is the second use of Altar Calls that is virtually identical to the Roman Catholic practice of Penance in my estimation.
> 
> Altar calls are used primarily for the members of the Church who have already been baptized. The point of the Altar Call for them is to "rededicate themselves" to the Lord. If a member hasn't been walking in the way that he should go then the Altar Call is intended for them to come forward and tell God that they're now going to dedicate themselves to getting it right. This is pure nonsense and a false Gospel.
> 
> 1. For the man who thinks he need not come forward, if the theology is correct that we need to rededicate ourselves then the whole Church should be coming forward at the altar call. The process has the effect of depressing the standard of righteousness required by the Gospel. It depresses the weight of the Law and completely obscures what Christ has accomplished. In other words, there are people who feel like "I've been getting it right so I need not come forward." It encourages self-righteousness.
> 
> 2. For the person that comes forward, they don't understand the Gospel either. They didn't understand it the first time they received it. The Altar Call holds out the Law (a weakened verson of it) and says "Did you fulfill it?" Even in the counterfeit version of the Law, the Altar Call makes some feel guilty enough to know that they didn't accomplish it but they never understand that Christ did. The person that comes forward is now coming forward to vow to accomplish a counterfeit version of the Law and saying "I've got to do this to be accepted by God...."
> 
> The whole thing is so wicked. I hate it with every fiber of my being. It is the worst part about going to Church at an SBC. It makes me sad every time I see it.



Good post Rich. My views are very similar. I know a Wesleyan pastor who abandoned the "altar call" years ago due to their being inherently manipulative. 

I also went to a "revival" at an SBC church a couple of years ago where the evangelist stated that there is something wrong if people don't come forward occasionally.


----------



## RiverCritter

Altar calls all too frequently depict the Lord Jesus as somehow “needy” or lonely, standing outside “the door of your heart” longing to be allowed in. But this is a reversal of the true picture! We are the needy, lonely ones standing outside and longing to be let in! And the human heart is not some warm, cozy place that the Holy One should desire to dwell there, either. Scripture tells us that the human heart is “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9).” Even laying aside election, that image of Christ “knocking at the door of your heart” is patently offensive all by itself, since it reverses the positions of sinner and Savior. 

Another aspect of every gospel invitation is an open, public declaration of one’s faith. Even in those “every head bowed and every eye closed; no one looking around… yes, I see that hand” scenarios, an open declaration of faith is urged. Care must be taken not to add a new requirement to salvation which Christ did not appoint! 

The whole of Scripture makes it quite plain that salvation is and has always been by faith alone. Rebirth, repentance, saving faith, and conversion are all the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s heart, _resulting_ in confession and action.

Confessing Christ before men is certainly a mark of the true Christian. But it is not a prerequisite action required of an unregenerate person as in order to _become_ a Christian. Indeed, it is not even possible for a non-Christian to make any saving profession of faith at all (1 Cor. 12:3). Only a truly regenerated soul can confess Jesus as Lord by the Spirit.

And if salvation is the result of a “saving decision” born in the heart and will of the hearer in his seat, *why* then, are they told, "Come forward *to receive Christ*"?! Going forward is not a necessary requirement unto salvation prescribed by Scripture. Yet it is added by well-meaning evangelists as though it was the commandment of God. Public confession and actions which reflect the work of Christ already in the believers' heart are definitely marks of that person's having been converted. But they are not commanded in Scripture as in order to obtain conversion!

But that's not the worst of it. 

Suppose someone goes forward because he was told that doing so meant that he had accepted Christ and had been accepted by Him. Yet in his heart he remains unconverted. Having obeyed the outward action, he may suppose that he is now saved. Walking down the aisle or not walking down it makes no difference to a person who has been truly born from Above. But to a person who was not awakened and given life and faith to believe the gospel, going forward may cause him to believe he is saved. By _tying salvation to an outward act_ instead of inward faith, the preacher adds a new prerequisite to salvation. It is often impossible for a new convert - genuinely reborn or not - to tell the difference between carnal hope and saving faith. The new birth is from Above, not from within. Regardless of what a person who goes forward in the church service _feels_ like, only time and obedience will distinguish true conversion from human religion. Adding this extrabiblical requirement to the invitation is nothing less than a perversion of the Gospel of salvation by faith alone, through grace alone, and in Christ alone.

This from a guy who once thought that any church that didn't give an evangelistic altar call in every service was "unChristian."

-Robin


----------



## puritan lad

Even worse. I hear preachers say that "If you are afraid to come forward alone, bring someone with you".

It is pure "Salvation by therapy".


----------



## blhowes

"If you're already saved and need to, why don't you come down and do business at the 'old-time altar'..."

I don't know if you've heard this before, but I've heard it quite often in the past. Each time I hear it I wonder why the front of the church sanctuary is referred to as an altar. An 'old-time altar? Its a trivia(l) question, but I was just wondering if anybody knew why they call it an altar, who first called it an altar, and why? Does it have anything to do with the OT altar?


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

My natural inclination is for the church to wash it's hands of any and everything Charles Finney coined or championed.

As has been stated earlier the problems arise with the presentation and ingrained presuppositions of the aisle walk.

It is often treated like the point of conversion or the act of it, a meritous act, a sealing of the covenant and this is utter blasphemy.

A man who thinks a prayer has saved him and goes about his live unchanged because he clings to the words the preacher told him as he knelt one single day in church has believed a lie and been fed one. 

This is not discipleship and that is what is intrinsically perverse about much of today's evangelism. We give handouts to the poor as opposed to helping them seek work and shelter, we build a house on a mission trip and leave or we ask for a confession or a baptism and follow up upon nothing else ever again.

Discipleship is the calling of the great commision and not fluffy philanthrapy, the pagan is capable of this kind of charity and it is not bad for us to participate in either but genuine missions involve studious and communal discipleship as opposed to walk an aisle and say a prayer adios.

I protest the alter call on account of it's founder whom was a heretic and because of the presuppositions that it carries with it culturally.

One of the things that struck my attention vibrantly upon entering a Presbyterian church was the lack of an altar call but instead an invitation to reflect upon scripture and converse with elders and believers.

I knew then this church was different.


----------



## turmeric

This started in the 1840's, I believe, with Phoebe Palmer, who also re-invented Wesleyanism - from a teaching that perfection is possible in this life after a process to her teaching that perfection is obtained in a crisis of offering oneself entirely to God. To encourage this, she started using an "altar," which is a long, low platform at which one can kneel. She said "The altar sanctifies the gift.", and encouraged people to come to these altars and seek the "second blessing". Before that, in Finney's time, it was called a 'mourners' bench".


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson

A book perfectly suited to your question:

http://www.solid-ground-books.com/search.asp?searchtext=altar+call



Blue Tick said:


> Obviously there is no biblical support for a church to use an altar call, so since it really isn't biblical, what are the negative implications of a church applying this technique?


----------



## Scott Bushey

RiverCritter said:


> Altar calls all too frequently depict the Lord Jesus as somehow “needy” or lonely, standing outside “the door of your heart” longing to be allowed in.
> -Robin





Exactly; Like a homeless guy at the turnpike exit hitchhiking........ridiculous.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

An excerpt from an exhortation I once delivered here:



> ...Experienced fishermen are on the sea when a sudden storm descends upon that valley and makes the sea so violent that they fear for death. They wake Jesus up and He rebukes the waves. If you notice in the account, they are only afraid of the waves but after Jesus stills the waters by the power of His authority, they are very much afraid. Afraid of what? Afraid of HIM. That's what Holiness strikes in man: fear. This is but one of many examples where Christ's Holiness frightens men. When Peter is first called He tells Jesus to depart from him because Peter has just seen the power of God and realizes he is a sinner.
> 
> If any of you are hearing about Jesus' holiness scaring people for the first time then let me really surprise you with something. Turning to John 12:37-41 we read:
> 
> John 12:37-41
> 
> 37 Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him.
> 
> 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:
> 
> "Lord, who has believed our message
> 
> and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
> 
> 39For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
> 
> 40"He has blinded their eyes
> 
> and deadened their hearts,
> 
> so they can neither see with their eyes,
> 
> nor understand with their hearts,
> 
> nor turn-and I would heal them."
> 
> 41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him.
> 
> John is quoting Isaiah right after the passage we're looking at in Isaiah 6. Remember, we have Isaiah groveling on the ground, stunned into cursing himself. Who is it that He sees high and lifted up? Whose train fills the temple? Who is it that is Holy, Holy, Holy?
> 
> It is Jesus! It is the Son of God before He had taken on flesh. That is who Isaiah sees.
> 
> Do you understand why I have a problem with the picture of Jesus knocking on the door of sinner's hearts pleading to come in? THIS is the Biblical picture of the Son of God's power and majesty. The thought of Him pitiful and weak outside the door of a man's heart is unbiblical and dishonors God.


I delivered this to a congregation that hears this idea pretty regularly. Some people were visibly moved by an encounter with the Holy God of Isaiah 6 compared with the idol they have been fed by revival theology.


----------



## ReformedWretch

blhowes said:


> "If you're already saved and need to, why don't you come down and do business at the 'old-time altar'..."
> 
> I don't know if you've heard this before, but I've heard it quite often in the past. Each time I hear it I wonder why the front of the church sanctuary is referred to as an altar. An 'old-time altar? Its a trivia(l) question, but I was just wondering if anybody knew why they call it an altar, who first called it an altar, and why? Does it have anything to do with the OT altar?



Here are the lyrics to a song MANY churches who use alter calls are very fond of. 

(first verse)

the service is nearing an end 
the choir is singing just as i am 
and now as the old song is played 
people at the alter are kneeling down to pray 
some are finding mercy, forgivness for their sin
some are fighting battles and struglling to win
the time has come to give in to the Lord
thats what this alter is for
(repeat intro)

(second verse)

a father is praying with his son
a mother kneels beside them, thanking God thay've come
an old man is standing there in tears
giving up a part of him that he's held back for years
hearts are being broken lives are being changed
those who call upon Him well, they will never be the same
the time has come to give it to the Lord
that's what this alters for

(chorus)

thats what this alter is for
you don't have to carry those burdens anymore
theres a light in the darkness theres a love thats true 
and Jesus is waiting, He's waiting there for you
go quickly now before they close the door 
that's what this alter is for
thats what this alter is for
you don't have to carry those burdens anymore
theres a light in the darkness theres a love thats true 
and Jesus is waiting, He's waiting there for you
(slower and softer)

go quickly now before they close the door 
and you can give your burdens to the Lord
thats what this alter is for


----------



## blhowes

turmeric said:


> This started in the 1840's, I believe, with Phoebe Palmer, who also re-invented Wesleyanism - from a teaching that perfection is possible in this life after a process to her teaching that perfection is obtained in a crisis of offering oneself entirely to God. To encourage this, she started using an "altar," which is a long, low platform at which one can kneel. She said "The altar sanctifies the gift.", and encouraged people to come to these altars and seek the "second blessing". Before that, in Finney's time, it was called a 'mourners' bench".


Meg,
Thanks.

A woman Methodist preacher?? If this is true (and I don't doubt it is), I wonder how many preachers who call people to come to the altar are aware of this?


----------



## turmeric

Some of them are woman methodist preachers! 

You can find this info by googling Phoebe Palmer - there's an article about her from Christianity Today magazine.


----------



## blhowes

turmeric said:


> Some of them are woman methodist preachers!
> 
> You can find this info by googling Phoebe Palmer - there's an article about her from Christianity Today magazine.



<just kidding>
If the biblical arguments don't change their minds, this might! 
</just kidding>


----------



## caddy

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Puritan%20Evangelism/JIPackerPuritanEvangelism.htm

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/gracealone.html


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Just a notation.

None of the Early Church Father enacted "an altar call."

None of the Reformers enacted "an altar call."

None of the Puritans.

Even further back, there are no Scriptures to demonstrate any kind of "altar" + "call" pertaining to the Gospel.

Who came up with it?

A Pelagian.

His name was Charles Finney and it began with "walking the sawdust trail" to come to the "altar" and sit at the "seat of decision" so that you, a person who has "been awakened by a sound argument", can rectify your life and lift yourself out of the pit of despair. If the Holy Spirit helps, well, that's all well and good. Maybe He won't. But that is OK too, because grace is not necessary. "Men can be transformed by a sound argument." (Finney, Systematic Theology, Section on the Holy Spirit and Regeneration).

Finney was a master manipulator. He should have been a magician. 

Pick a card anyone?


----------



## Timothy William

Never thought I would read "Finney" and "sound argument" in the same sentence. I knew that most of that stuff about free will and the like was rubbish by logic before I was even a believer. (Ever been an unbeliever who knows you cannot believe but for the gracious work of God and have people tell you you could repent and believe if you just tried hard enough? Any idea how annoying (to put it mildly) such people are?)


----------



## turmeric

Timothy William said:


> Never thought I would read "Finney" and "sound argument" in the same sentence. I knew that most of that stuff about free will and the like was rubbish by logic before I was even a believer. (Ever been an unbeliever who knows you cannot believe but for the gracious work of God and have people tell you you could repent and believe if you just tried hard enough? Any idea how annoying (to put it mildly) such people are?)



Yes, I grew up with them. They also told me I was a "carnal Christian". I jumped through the hoops and nothing happened so many times...


----------

