Altar Calls?

...but can that be attributed solely to the use of an altar call?

 

Stop it.

This had nothing to do with altar calls, nor any other 'method'; it was in the spirit of any humble man who admits that he cannot judge converted and not.

AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF CHARLES FINNEY
Can't reccomend it enough.

 

Okay, I'll stop it. All I was doing was addiing to TomVols' statement about Billy Graham

And Dr. Graham used essentially the same methods as Finney, only Dr. Graham embraced solid doctrine and Finney didn't. Okay, I'm done now.

 

That's what I do. The music is playing, and all but the sound guy (and hopefully he is to) is centered on their response to the proclaimed word.

This is a great reminder. We need to be clear. Sometimes even "churched" folk use church jargon they don't understand. One day I asked the some folks to define "traveling mercies" (ever heard someone pray for this?). They couldn't. In fact, one year for VBS training, I asked all our teachers to define salvation without using "saved", etc. It was hard to do, but it's doable. I'm not saying we should avoid theologically pregnant words. But we must understand why they are so rich theologically. If we can't explain and define them, we don't understand them.

Tom, if you say you were from East Tennessee, we definitely have some questions to ask our respective parents :laugh:

 

This is a complex issue and I've discussed it on other threads. There are several different Greek words translated as "worship" in the NT. Personally, I find that most definitions of worship in the American church don't fit the Biblical data.

So to make a long subject short, no I do not believe that Acts 2 describes a worship service, and though a case might be made for corporate worship from Col. 3, it is speculation to say that it is talking about a "worship service" per se, since the term does not occur there. (Again, "worship" must be defined.) Also, the term "worship" occurs in Col. in the English Bible in only a negative way.

 

Sorry, you're only allowed to be sarcastic about my posts when you understand my position. :tongue3: My position is that in the Bible the Sunday church service is not ever said to be for the purpose of worship. So while I don't make a big deal about calling it a "worship service," I think that technically and theologically that is a misnomer.

 

Nope, born and raised in the flatlands of West Tennessee. Although my family did live in Oak Ridge in the last year of World War II. During that time I learned to say you'ns, we'ns and they'ns, along with git-chere. Three weeks after the war ended, we went back to the flatlands. Swapped my mountain twang for the lazy drawl.

Sorry for derailing the thread. Now back to the invitation.

 

One Sunday night, I was away from my church, and my daughter, who served elsewhere, came to visit. Later, she called me, somewhat upset.

"Daddy, the preacher didn't give an invitation tonight. Daddy, how are people going to get saved if you don't have an invitation?"

It was a teachable moment, of course. I know of no pastor who believes what she thought was true. But somehow she had gotten the message over her church life that one must have an invitation for anyone to be saved. Wonder why? That is why clarity and precision in our "church lingo" is so important.

 

I had a discussion with a pastor just this last week, who, when hearing a certain church no longer has altar calls, said "How are people ever going to get saved then?" That's not the first time I ever heard that, either. As I referenced earlier, there are people out there who believe that the Holy Spirit convicts of sin only when there's an invitation and only after the preaching.

...more to come......

 

I knew a missionary who thought this way. So I said, "Then housebound handicapped people can't get saved, can they?" Hmm. No answer.

 

Oh, my. I just couldn't believe any preacher would set limits on when or where God saves people. Frankly, I"m shocked that any preacher actually believes that. I just thought it was carelessness.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that most preachers who give invitations do so because that's the way they've always seen it done. If their pastor did it, every evangelist they heard did it, it must be okay. If Billy Graham did it that way, it must be right.

Ah, well.

 

You are correct. I mainly was referring to the appeal part of the invitation, rather than the methodology used with a responder. That's a whole 'nother thread.

 

For sometime I have wonder about the phrase " Invite Jesus into your heart". The Bible teaches that with repentance comes forgiveness, and once you have repented (recognized your lost condition and the need for a savior, asked for fogiveness and look at sin as it really is) then comes the supernatural part Christ comes in. I realize that there are a lot of things or sayings that we accept under the guise of poetic priviledges. Is this one of them?

 

That's a bit off-topic, but here goes: Accepting Christ is a onetime thing, but repentance is not. Christ forgives once for all, but repentance isn't a onetime thing. It's a continuous attitude a believer needs to embrace for one's entire life.

Now, in regards to the altar call and whether it's scriptural, it's neither commanded, nor admonished in scripture. A church is free to use it, or to not use it, as part of their worship tradition, as they see fit.

 

My 6 year old nephew heard that phrasing being used and asked his mother if it was true if he got saved that Jesus would be in his heart. This very literal thinking child started hitting his chest above his heart and said, "Well, get him out of there."

His mother decided that there are better phrases to use when talking to children about Jesus.

 

Does the Holy Spirit live in your heart poetically? No of course not. If the Holy Spirit is in your heart, is Jesus there? Of course. So I have no problems with using this form of invitation as long as the sinner understands that Christ must cleanse him of his sin. And there are clear Scriptures that support the phrase, such as John 1:12 and Rev. 3:20. (I believe the church at Laodicea to have been apostate, its members unsaved.)

 

I think there is a lot of personal speculation about the motives of those who give invitations. What I know is that any preacher worth his salt believes that he is sent by God to deliver the very message he brings at that moment. And that message is for someone at that moment. The invitation is the opportunity to respond for those specific individuals to that specific message at that specific moment.

I would hope the preacher does not simply throw a message together and do nothing more than hope for the best that it had some benefit for someone. My concern is that this is the way many of our sermons are done today. And that is much, much more tragic than any perceived motivation behind an invitation.

 

I, like you, do not doubt the motives of any preacher or anybody else who gives an invitation. I believe all of them have a heart for lost people and earnestly desire to seem them saved.

I'm also convinced that many of them use the same method that they've seen done by others. That's all they know. And they've not thought through the implications of their method, the language or the terminology.

For some, it seems that the invitation is just something you do at the end of the sermon--sort of an appendage. How many sermons have you heard that had little or no gospel, followed by (like the TV preacher) "well, we never want to close our service without giving you an opportunity to be saved" or something like that.

That's when I get cold chills.

 

I do not see "heart" in Rev 3:20 or Jn 1:12. No question that Christ is in you, as there are numerous Scriptures to this effect. I can't recall a single one that supports the notion of "inviting Jesus into your heart."

Yes there is, just like there is about those who do not give altar calls. Like when someone wrote this:

Strangely, I heard a vehement altar call guy tell me once that, no matter what he preached, he relied on the altar call to "bail him out." That's just garbage. However, I do agree that there is far too little preparation in the sermon and expectation for what God will do, and one of the blights on this is the idea that God only works through some arbitrary altar call.

I agree. On the whole, I believe those who give altar calls largely want to glorify God. I do not doubt their sincerity. That said, even sincere people can be misled and misleading, and can be guilty of unsound theology and practices.

Here's where I cringe. And here's where our respective theologies are shown. Hopefully, the message is for all who are there. And whether there's an altar call or not, the person listening to the message is charged with and capable of responding. They are without excuse. The idea that the Holy Spirit works only after the sermon and only during X number of stanzas is a foreign idea to the Word. If you said the invitation is an opportunity (minus the definite article), you'd be on much safer ground.

More than I'd care to count.