I ran across an interesing article today on the http://www.monergism.com web site (a great resource of information) regarding the topic of the altar call. Specifically, the teaching of Decisional Regeneration is addressed.

I can remember many week of prayer services in my Adventist schools ending in the last service where there would be the appeal to give your lives to Christ. Sometimes these appeals would go on for a long time with endless stanzas of particular hymns that were designed to create an emotional response, and the services wouldn’t close until virtually everyone came forward to commit their lives to Christ. I knew some people who said they went forward only because they thought the meeting would end sooner.

In campmeetings, we were told that by going forward we would be assured of eternal life. Campmeetings were more evangelical than our SDA schools, where we were told that going forward was the start of the salvation process.

This article linked here:
http://www.lgmarshall.org/Heterodoxy/adams_decisionalregen.html

examines the Biblical basis of altar calls and other appeals. I found this very interesting.

Stan

Here is a short excerpt from the above article:

Decisional Regeneration and Altar Calls

“One may read thousands of pages of the history of the Christian Church without finding a single reference to the “old-fashioned altar call” before the last century. Most Christians are surprised to learn that history before the time of Charles G. Finney (1792-1875) knows nothing of this type of “invitation.” The practice of urging men and women to make a physical movement at the conclusion of a meeting was introduced by Mr. Finney in the second decade of the nineteenth century. Dr. Albert B. Dod, a professor of theology at Princeton Seminary at the time of Mr. Finney’s ministry, pointed out the newness of the practice and showed that this method was without historical precedent. In his review of Finney’s Lectures on Revival, Professor Dod stated that one will search the volumes of church history in vain for a single example of this practice before the 1820’s.7 Instead, history tells us that whenever the gospel was preached men were invited to Christ - not to decide at the end of a sermon whether or not to perform some physical action.

“The Apostle Paul, the great evangelist, never heard of an altar call, yet today some consider the altar call to be a necessary mark of an evangelical church. In fact, churches which do not practice it are often accused of having no concern for the lost. Neither Paul nor Peter ever climaxed his preaching with forcing upon his hearers the decision to walk or not to walk. It is not only with church history, then, but with Scriptural history as well that the altar call is in conflict.”

“One may ask, “How did preachers of the gospel for the previous eighteen hundred years invite men to Christ without the use of the altar call?” They did so in much the same way as did the apostles and the other witnesses of the early Church. Their messages were filled with invitations for all men everywhere to come to Christ.”

“Surely it will be admitted that the first sermon of the Christian Church was not climaxed by an altar call. Peter on the Day of Pentecost concluded his sermon with these words: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made that same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Peter stopped. Then the divinely inspired record tells us: “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles, ‘Men and brethren, what shall we do?’” (Acts 2:36-37). This response was the result of the work of the Spirit of God, not of clever appeals or psychological pressure. That day the apostles witnessed the conversion of three thousand people.”

“C. H. Spurgeon invited men to come to Christ, not to an altar. Listen to him invite men to Jesus Christ:

“Before you leave this place breathe an earnest prayer to God, saying, ‘God be merciful to me a sinner. Lord, I need to be saved. Save me. I call upon Thy name....Lord, I am guilty, I deserve Thy wrath. Lord, I cannot save myself. Lord, I would have a new heart and a right spirit, but what can I do? Lord, I can do nothing, come and work in me to do of Thy good pleasure.”

Thou alone hast power, I know
To save a wretch like me;
To whom, or whither should I go
If I should run from Thee?

“But I now do from my very soul call upon Thy name. Trembling, yet believing, I cast myself wholly upon Thee, O Lord. I trust the blood and righteousness of Thy dear Son.... Lord, save me tonight, for Jesus’ sake.’” “Go home alone trusting in Jesus. ‘I should like to go into the enquiry-room.’ I dare say you would, but we are not willing to pander to popular superstition. We fear that in those rooms men are warmed into a fictitious confidence. Very few of the supposed converts of enquiry-rooms turn out well. Go to your God at once, even where you now are. Cast yourself on Christ, at once, ere you stir an inch!”

“Invitations such as Spurgeon gave directing men to Christ and not to aisles are needed today. George Whitefield’s sermons were long invitations to men to come to Christ, not to an altar. The same may be said of the preaching of Jonathan Edwards, of the Reformers and of others in the past who were blessed with a harvest of many souls using Scriptural means of inviting men to Christ.”

“Today the altar call has become the climax and culmination of the entire meeting. Many stanzas of a hymn are usually sung, during which time all kinds of appeals are made to the sinner to walk the aisle, and the clear impression is given to the sinner that his eternal destiny hangs on this movement of his feet.”
-----------------------------------------------------------

I especially like Spurgeon’s simple, but from the heart appeal.

Stan

And here is a great closing hymn by Isaac Watts:

The greatness of God’s power in saving sinners can only be seen against the background of man’s desperate condition. What a glorious doctrine is the new birth to the helpless sinner! May the Church return to biblical doctrine so that it may evangelize again to the glory of God.

How helpless guilty nature lies,
Unconscious of its load!
The heart, unchanged can never rise
To happiness and God.

The will perverse, the passions blind,
In paths of ruin stray;
Reason, debased, can never find
The safe, the narrow way.

Can aught, beneath a power divine,
The stubborn will subdue?
Tis Thine, almighty Saviour, Thine,
To form the heart anew.

O change these wretched hearts of ours,
And give them life divine!
Then shall our passions and our powers,
Almighty Lord, be Thine!

- Isaac Watts
----------------------------------------------------------

Stan

Thanks for link and article, Stan.  Personally, I was never very comfortable with alter calls even as a youngster.  It wasn’t because they weren’t Biblical, because at the time I had no idea if they were or not and I didn’t really care.  They just seemed so contrived and manipulative to me even then but I almost felt guilty for NOT going up with the rest of the crowd.

Phil Johnson wrote an article on Charles Finney that you may be interested in reading (if you haven’t already) found here: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil//articles/finney.htm
Johnson (an associate pastor at John MacArthur’s church in California) doesn’t see Finney as a hero of the faith by any stretch, instead he is labeled a heretic.  In considering the supplied quotes from Finney’s writings, I’d have difficulty claiming otherwise.

According to the article, apparently Finney’s alter calls did not initiate a lasting change in his audience.  I guess being whipped up emotionally doesn’t necessarily change the heart.

I’ve printed out the article so I’ll give it a read on the way home. So I may have more to say later.

I’ve never been a big fan of altar calls or the emotionalism that usually accompanies them.  But I’m not sure what is being argued here.  Is it the act of walking forward to an altar or podium or whatever that is the problem or is the very call itself from the pulpit that is deemed problematic? It would seem that in any case in which the gospel is preached that a response of some kind is desired and that this response has both immediate as well as long lasting implications and while never perfect, is hoped to represent the beginning of the process of spiritual renewal.

I’m also a little confused about the stress in this article and post about the need for regeneration. In other places it seems the emphasis has been not on regeneration--which comes after God’s act of justifying us and is never perfect in this life in any event.  But where altar calls are made, suddenly the issue of regeneration is at stake? I don’t think it’s necessarily true across the board that altar calls consist of people who are asked to regenerate themselves or take some action makes them contributors to their own salvation apart from the grace that
God provides. What am I missing here?

Also, a quote from the article says

In his review of Finney’s Lectures on Revival, Professor Dod stated that one will search the volumes of church history in vain for a single example of this practice before the 1820’s.

and

“One may ask, “How did preachers of the gospel for the previous eighteen hundred years invite men to Christ without the use of the altar call?” They did so in much the same way as did the apostles and the other witnesses of the early Church. Their messages were filled with invitations for all men everywhere to come to Christ.”

Well, what sort of evangelism or gospel preaching existed for most of those 1800 years? The church for most of this period was the Roman Catholic church, where it is presumed the gospel wasn’t being preached at all (I’m not necessarily saying that, but that is both the evangelical and Adventist understanding of church history). It sounds like the writer is trying to create a strawman. The judgment of Finney, who I’m not all that familiar, seems too harsh here. 

Isn’t the “altar call” what Billy Graham used throughout his revivals for fifty years or so? How is what Billy Graham has done for the past half century different from “Decisional Regeneration”?

He might be surprised to be charged with being “unBiblical”.

Hey Glenn, I think what Stan and the article he linked is referring to is that regeneration is completely the work of the Holy Spirit (see John 3).  When an emotional condition such as walking down an aisle or making a quick decision is mixed up with the Spirit that “blows where it wishes” (John 3:8 ), the work of salvation is placed squarely back on man.  What’s more, it becomes the preacher’s responsibility to be persuasive so that people will respond in an emotional way.

This is what is so amazing about God’s method for converting sinners, which is preaching the gospel.  Paul said many times he lacked eloquence, yet he is credited with building Christianity in the first century purely by preaching the good news.  God uses the preaching of the gospel as the means by which He reveals Himself to sinners (Romans 10:14-17).

When Peter preached at Pentecost, he preached about sin and judgment, implicating the Jews in the death of God’s Son.  Instead of asking them to “make a decision for Christ,” their natural response was to cry out “What shall we do?” (Acts 2:37).  Peter’s response delivered the good news and also tied the work of salvation to the Savior, not the sinner. “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Acts 2:38-39 ESV).

Greg

Hey Aaron!  That article you linked by Phil Johnson showed many similarities between Finney’s theology and that of the Adventist pioneers, particularly in the belief that justification by faith alone is not enough to save the sinner, but that their works are also required.  He said, “‘Christ our righteousness’ is Christ the author or procurer of our justification. But this does not imply that He procures our justification by imputing His obedience to us...” Ironically, this is exactly the position articulated by the Roman Catholics.

Finney also denied the doctrine of original sin, which we saw on another thread is the same heresy being recycled today by many historic Adventists.

I can see why Finney was not very successful in retaining converts, because they were all loaded down under the weight of their own attempts at perfection.

Greg

My introduction to “hard core” (my term) altar calls was when I was assigned to work with a team which included the Uncle, his nephew, and Former G.C. President, Robert (Bob) Faukenberg.  Bob and I were a visitation team.  I was the song leader/singer. 

Alter calls with organ music have lasted over an hour.  During this time one by one, members of the team would walk among the congregation, step over people in the pews, forcing them to make room for them to sit beside the “targeted person”, with whom they would argue doctrinal points, with Bible in hand, going over and over the teaching of that doctrine, putting pressure on that person to acknowledge belief in that doctrine - usually the one giving them the most problem in withholding their decision to “become a Seventh-day Adventist.” These appeals did not address accepting Christ as their personal Savior, but acceptance of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs.  Depending upon the assessed value of the person in attendance (I recall a very long hard sell to a dentist), the head proselytizer would sit for a half an hour laboring with one individual.  All the while other team members were doing the same with others in the audience.  Then they would switch.  The spoken plan was that perhaps the approach and personality of another person might be the key to unlock their resistance.  I recall one altar call lasting a full hour and twenty minutes.  These people were embarrassed in front of all the others in attendance by their refusal to “surrender” to this pressure and walk up front. 

Naturally many of these individuals never returned.

In my mind, the key factor with altar calls is the subtle suggestion (conversion and union with Christ and sanctification not being fully addressed), that by walking forward one becames a genuine Christian and were thus saved.
And often no “change” was observed in the life and heart of the individual. 

But, while I think an appeal, of the Spurgeon type (above mentioned) for a personal, private commitment to Christ is best; then perhaps an invitation to encourage such a person to come for further teaching of growth in Christ; still I cannot deny those instances of genuine conversion which followed a walk to the altar.

Again, the danger is for a new believer to “think” or “assume” that walking down an isle is how one accepts Jesus as Savior and Lord.  It is the “walk” taking place within the heart, invisible to the physical world that makes all the difference and will, if genuine, include or lead to surrender to the Lordship of Christ Jesus as well.

At least these are my convictions as of today.  :c)

Jess

Well, again, I wouldn’t dispute the many horror stories surrounding altar calls, but this is far from an SDA invention. It’s probably one of the few cases where SDAism has adopted a more mainstream practice. And I’ve little doubt that Adventism’s use of it was at least partially, if not largely, done to replicate the methods employed by such mainstream, and wildly successful preachers, like Billy Graham.

So, while SDA altar calls have indeed been abused in both the evangelistic series and campus education processes, SDA’s are hardly alone, much less responsible for, the proliferation of this rather heavy-handed tactic and the theology that drives it. 

Glenn,

My purpose in posting this article was not to suggest that Adventism is responsible for altar calls. I think though it is interesting to see the common roots of American theology. Charles Finney is the poster boy for the bad theology of historic Adventism, as well as a lot of evangelicalism.

Studies have been done on Billy Graham crusades in which it has been shown that only a very small minority of the “conversions” at a crusade are really genuine. People get caught up in the emotionalism and there is no root as the seed falls on rocky ground.

I have just been swamped at work the last two days. There is a lot more I would like to say about this.

Welcome Jess to 4TG. Thanks for your insights.

Stan

Along the lines of Stan’s post, here’s what the evangelist Ray Comfort says about modern evangelism techniques, based on research he conducted in the early 1990s: “In 1991, in the first year of the decade of harvest, a major denomination in the U.S. was able to obtain 294,000 decisions for Christ. That is, in one year, this major denomination of 11,500 churches was able to obtain 294,000 decisions for Christ. Unfortunately, they could only find 14,000 in fellowship, which means they couldn’t account for 280,000 of their decisions, and this is normal, modern evangelical results...”

Glenn, you’re right about this not being just an SDA issue–it’s a Christian issue.  I think the fundamental problem is that we are always looking for ways to reinvent the gospel or make it appear relevant, yet if we look to Scripture, we realize that it isn’t about us or our methods, it’s about God.  God only asks that we faithfully convey what he has already said by acknowledging the Law (driving sinners to Christ) and by proclaiming the gospel (giving sinners the “good news").  This has been the theme of our series on “Law and Gospel,” and more detail can be found in this post.

Here is a quote by the Anglican minister J.C. Ryle about the use of the Law in evangelism, conveying a viewpoint that isn’t heard much in Christian circles today:  “Let us expound and beat out the Ten Commandments, and show the length, and breadth, and depth, and height of their requirements. This is the way of our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount. We cannot do better than follow His plan. We may depend on it: men will never come to Jesus, and stay with Jesus, and live for Jesus, unless they really know why they are to come, and what is their need. Those whom the Spirit draws to Jesus are those whom the Spirit has convinced of sin. Without thorough conviction of sin, men may seem to come to Jesus and follow Him for a season, but they will soon fall away and return to the world.” -J.C. Ryle, Holiness

I’d be interested in hearing what others think of Ryle’s quote.

Greg

Greg,
I heard a minister expound this and tell of the dramatic confrontations he had with total strangers, asking them if they had ever lied, stollen anything, etc. going down the list, trying to get them to be honest and admit to committing these sins.  Then he would bring in the wages of sin is death and make his gospel presentation.

There is room for discussion and possibly debate on this but the Bible does tell us the Holy Spirit’s work is to convict of sin and righteousness. 

I also think we cannot ignore the individuals temperament and personal conviction of how s/he is to “witness.” I would not be comfortable doing this on the street to total strangers as the above individual did.

JessD

Greg wrote:

“Here is a quote by the Anglican minister J.C. Ryle about the use of the Law in evangelism, conveying a viewpoint that isn’t heard much in Christian circles today: “Let us expound and beat out the Ten Commandments, and show the length, and breadth, and depth, and height of their requirements. This is the way of our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount. We cannot do better than follow His plan. We may depend on it: men will never come to Jesus, and stay with Jesus, and live for Jesus, unless they really know why they are to come, and what is their need. Those whom the Spirit draws to Jesus are those whom the Spirit has convinced of sin. Without thorough conviction of sin, men may seem to come to Jesus and follow Him for a season, but they will soon fall away and return to the world.” -J.C. Ryle, Holiness”

“I’d be interested in hearing what others think of Ryle’s quote.”
-----------------------------------------------------------

J.C. Ryle is correct. So much “evangelism” today is of the watered down type. You hear a lot about how God is love, but what is missing is the sinfulness of sin and that God will also judge justly.

Stan

Along the same lines of JC Ryle is this quote from a sermon by Alistair Begg:

“People ask me all the time, ‘What are we to do with the Old Testament?’ And the answer is, you are to read the Old Testament in light of the fact that God has made himself finally and savingly known in Jesus. The arrival of Jesus is a watershed event in the unfolding panorama of God’s purposes. And therefore it is not that the Old Testament–the Law and the Prophets–are somehow or another from a bygone era, and we can set them aside over in a room somewhere–perhaps put them in a glass case and say ‘Oh there were people who paid attention to the Law of God, you know.’ No, rather they are foundational to all of our discovery of who is this suffering Servant to arrive? That’s why we’ve said time and again, in hope that the penny may drop for some, what we say to our kids in Sunday School, that the way to understand the Bible is to keep your eyes on Jesus. Because in the Old Testament, he is expected. In the gospels, he is revealed. In the Acts of the Apostles, he is preached. In the epistles, he is explained. And in the book of Revelation, he is anticipated. So, when we come to an understanding of who Jesus is, the Law is part and parcel of that process.

A few months ago I worshiped in another church far from here, at least a thousand miles from here for those who are always trying to find out where it was. And in the course in the worship…the gentleman who was a well-meaning gentleman did a credible job of explaining to the congregation and to me that God loved me. And on the strength of the fact that God loved me, which he tried to make as much of as he could, he then exhorted me to give my life to God, in response to God’s love. And he explained that the extent of God’s love was so vast that Jesus died on a cross. I was sitting there thinking to myself, ‘Imagine that I wasn’t a believer and I’m listening to this message. How am I supposed to put two and two together here and get four? How do I get from the fact of God’s love, to the death of Jesus, to the fact that I’m supposed to give my life to him?’ You see, if Susan (my wife) comes to me and says ‘I love you with all my heart and as a result of that I’m going to jump off a ten storey building to the ground below to show you how much I love you.’ I’d say ‘What possible value would there be in that? That’s a strange way to express love.’ But if she was to say, ‘I love you with all my heart, and your need is so vast physically that I’m prepared to give a part of my life to you in order that in your potential death you can find in me your life,’ I’d say, ‘I can understand why you’d give yourself away because there is a need.’

But until men and women are confronted with the Law of God, which shows them to be sinners, the idea of a savior dying on the cross doesn’t really make sense. ‘What is he doing up there?’ ‘Well he loves you.’ Yeah I understand that, but wasn’t there another way he could have done this? Why die on a cross? Because without the shedding of blood there will be no remission of sin. Of what? Of sin. Like what? Like stealing, lying, lusting, not loving God with all your heart and so on. You mean like breaking some of the ten commandments? Yes! So the Law of God is proclaimed to the well-healed middle class suburbanite in Cleveland who grades himself or herself on the curve. Driving in my car away from service I say to myself, ‘Well I do have a few little things that probably need attention,’ but I looked along the road and I saw old Billy boy there and frankly he is a disaster zone compared to me. So presumably however he gets graded, I’m gonna be OK. ‘Because [God] will bring [the curve] way down and I’ll be somewhere where I’ll get through.’

No you see, none of us can get past the first one–’you shall have no other gods before me.’ Now when I realize then that I have broken God’s law and that I cannot get myself in a right relationship with God by playing catch-up in my external religion, then I say ‘How in the world do you get out of this predicament?’ When a man or a woman has reached the point where they say ‘How do I get out of this predicament?’ then they are ready to hear about the fact that the love of God extended to death of Jesus upon a cross because it was by his death upon a cross that he bore the punishment for the sin that I deserved to bear–that he died in my place and he took my penalty–that the filthy rags of my rebellion are more than matched by the wonder of the robe of righteousness which is a royal robe that I don’t deserve, which he gives to me, not because of anything in me, but on account of his exceptional grace.”
-------------------------------------------------
We need a lot more sermons like that preached by Alistair Begg.

Stan

Posted anonymously by:

My copy of “New Covenant Theology - questions answered”
arrived yesterday.  by Steve Lehrer.  It is advertised
on a new website I discovered from the book. 

http://www.ids.org

Originated by Geoff Volker, founder and director of
In-Depth Studies, 2006.

Thought it might be of interest to some acquainted with
NCT.

Jess