• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Do Altar Calls Still Matter In The Church Today?

Doc

Doc

Member
Real Person
Read Doc's blog here: http://docburkhart.blogspot.com/2011/01 ... hurch.html

The practice of altar calls—calling people forward after an evangelistic sermon to make a public confession of faith in Christ—has gained prominence in the 20th century primarily through “crusades” such as those of Billy Graham. Also known as the “invitation system,” altar calls are regularly practiced as part of some church services, especially in many Baptist denominations and other evangelical churches where altar calls are an integral part of the services.

While altar calls as practiced today are not found in the Bible, their advocates cite several biblical examples as support for using them. First, Christ called each of His disciples publicly, telling them “follow Me” (Matthew 4:19, 9:9) and expecting them to respond immediately, which they did. Jesus was demanding an outward identification with Himself on the part of those who would be His disciples. Of course, the problem of Judas, who also responded publicly by leaving his life behind and following Jesus, is that the “call” Judas responded to was not synonymous with salvation.

Proponents of the altar call also cite Matthew 10:32 as proof that a new believer must acknowledge Christ “before men” in order for Him to reciprocate. Calling people to the front of an arena or church is certainly acknowledging before men that a decision has been made. The question is whether that decision is genuinely motivated by a sincere repentance and faith or whether it is an emotional response to external stimuli such as swelling music, heartfelt pleas from the pulpit, or a desire to “go along with the crowd.” Romans 10:9 makes it clear that genuine salvation comes only from heartfelt belief, which will then result in a verbal confession of that faith.

Just like the sinner’s prayer, altar calls can be an outward expression of genuine repentance and faith in Christ. The danger is in looking to the prayer or the response as evidence of salvation (Matthew 7:22). True salvation results in a life of continual sanctification as the Holy Spirit within the true believer produces more and more of His fruit (Galatians 5:22-23) as evidence of the reality of saving faith.

Read Doc's blog here: http://docburkhart.blogspot.com/2011/01 ... hurch.html
 
The question is whether that decision is genuinely motivated by a sincere repentance and faith or whether it is an emotional response to external stimuli such as swelling music, heartfelt pleas from the pulpit, or a desire to “go along with the crowd.” Romans 10:9 makes it clear that genuine salvation comes only from heartfelt belief, which will then result in a verbal confession of that faith.
Click to expand...

Many people do not know it but Dr. Billy Graham was and has retained some very Calvinistic leanings in his theology over the years. It seems that in some of his writings in newspapers where he has answered questions and in some of his books that he holds to the doctrine of election of sinners and efficacious grace of those elect unto faith. That would make sense because he grew up in the Reformed Presbyterian denomination before joining the Southern Baptist Convention denomination.

In talking with some it seems that he held to the idea that all he needed to do was get before the people and preach because of his belief that God would draw the elect and save them through the work of the holy Spirit.

He has used the system very well .But some are critical of the system and have pointed out some of the dangers.

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, who was for many years an evangelist as well, wrote a book called "True Evangelism." In that book he noted that too much of a stress on decisions and alter calls could lead one to think that the act of praying or the act of walking down to the front was what actually merited the grace of God in their life. In that sense his criticism was rather clear and correct: we must never do anything to lead someone to believe their acts were what helped them obtain the grace of Christ. Doing something like that is Roman Catholicism all over again. Salvation takes place in the heart at regeneration which is then verified and realized through a confession and life of good works. But the change of the heart is where grace begins, not in the act of walking an aisle, praying a prayer, or any other physical act.

Charles G. Finney in his popular revivals also led the way in making the alter call famous. Then, even legendary pastors, such as the famous Dr. W.A. Criswell, who led for years the largest and at that time possibly the strongest church in regard to financial strength of the massive Southern Baptist Denomination, implemented the alter or what he called the mourning bench in their church building and it set the stage for that practice spreading like fire through thousands upon thousands of churches.

So what is the answer to the tension over this? I have found Dr. Chafer's answer to be a solid one. If you use an alter call then be careful to make it clear that coming forward is only a way to confess your faith rather than a way to gain or experience faith. He urged his disciples to stress for someone to embrace Christ by faith alone in their seat while listening to the teaching or preaching and then once turning from sin in their heart and embracing Christ in their heart if they thought they had just done that to come forward to talk to a leader or preacher about what decision had happened to them while sitting under the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

That system there seems to make it clear that salvation is something that happens in the heart first and foremost and then everything after that is acts to verify and confirm what has taken place in the heart. I think it is probably a safe method to use today to protect the purity of the gospel while still allowing for people to confess through some public act such as with prayer or baptism or whatever it might be.
 
The practice of altar calls—calling people forward after an evangelistic sermon to make a public confession of faith in Christ—has gained prominence in the 20th century primarily through “crusades” such as those of Billy Graham.
Click to expand...

19th century, and Charles Finney's 'Revivalism'. Oh, Allen got to that point ahead of me, thanks.

On the whole the preachers who use altar calls are aware of the dangers of going along with the crowd, certainly some misuse it, but both Graham and Finney used it as a starting point, to be followed up by joining a church or deeper study and discipleship.

Mind Alter calls are not necessarily just salvation calls anyway, many are calls to mature believers to spend some time in worship and prayer. Those calls are in themselves solid (unless we're talking about misuse of the Glossalia, but that is another mater)
 
Let me humbly disagree. I love my pastor who at the end of every sermon does NOT give an altar call. But I disagree with him. Having spent a bit of time in sales, I know the importance of "closing the deal." Jesus called out, "Come follow me and I will make you fishers of men." He could have said, "I'm going fishing" and left it at that but didn't. He said to the blind and crippled, "What would you like for me to do?" An acknowledgement had to be made of some thing to be done. An act of faith of some sort was necessary. In studying the doctrine of Salvation, much to do has been made about exactly WHEN a person is saved- is it the confession, the walk to the altar, the change of life, the warm and fuzzy feeling, the presence of miraculous gifts, baptism by water or Spirit, etc? I am not sure that that matters. I contend that the seed sown is often blown off to the side by a casual "See you next week..." comment with little regard to fragile life potential. May God forgive us for not attempting to say, "Come follow me..." when the heart is stirred toward life and forgiveness and holiness and restoration. Is the harvest lost for lack of harvesters? It is in many places, not for lack of altar calls but rather for a lack of a call at all. Not all babies are born at the hospital and neither are all born-again at church or crusades. But we often rush an expectant mother to the hospital as a safeguard to mom and baby and our infant mortality rate moves in a very positive direction. If churches and hospitals have no babies born, that society is in decline. If we see and believe all the rewards that await us and are not stirred to bring others along, brothers, we do not do well. But I am rather pragmatic and invite any to show me a better way than that which has been used to reach many. "Show me the money!" is shouted by the world. Is it wrong to whisper, "Show me the lives redeemed, the wounded hearts mended, the marriages restored at a place better than an altar?"
Blessings,
Maddog
 
I would suggest that we are getting things out of Biblical perspective when we presume that church meetings are for the redemption of the lost. "Church" itself is an assembly of believers and we come together to praise God, pray, build each other up in the faith and fellowship. We have it out of sync with the Biblical principle of evangelism. We are to evangelize by taking the good news (gospel) to the lost where they are. Too many churches are feeding their people milk, when they should be feasting on the meat of the Word. They are serving a pablum diet to reach the lost that may be brought in by some scheme. We need to be bold to take the Word of God to the lost where they are and let altar calls at church meetings be for the consecration of believers and for special prayer. IMHO
 
Both Finney and Billy Graham would agree with you, they used alter calls to salvation for revival meetings or crusades where many lost would be present. So far as I've seen altar calls done in a church they have been for special worship or prayer, or very rarely for salvation on a special occasion (anyone new to the church kind of thing). I agree John.
 
An alter call is a broad term that might include other things beside salvation. If an alter call is a like a grand prayer given to resonate in the spires of the church roof, then it probably doesn't matter. But if it is something where the Holy Spirit is moving and causes:

Salvation, rededication, healing, confession, sanctification, release from oppression, etc. then it matters. If the term alter call is too religious or trite then rename it anything you like as long as God can and does move. Call it a bucket shining if you will.
 
John Whitten said:
I would suggest that we are getting things out of Biblical perspective when we presume that church meetings are for the redemption of the lost. "Church" itself is an assembly of believers and we come together to praise God, pray, build each other up in the faith and fellowship. We have it out of sync with the Biblical principle of evangelism. We are to evangelize by taking the good news (gospel) to the lost where they are. Too many churches are feeding their people milk, when they should be feasting on the meat of the Word. They are serving a pablum diet to reach the lost that may be brought in by some scheme. We need to be bold to take the Word of God to the lost where they are and let altar calls at church meetings be for the consecration of believers and for special prayer. IMHO
Click to expand...
excellent
and might i add that we treat churches as hospitals for us to drag into and get revived (sucking all of the energy out of the minister, after all, he is the one who is paid to generate the blood for the transfusion that we need!) rather than as a place for healthy, growing, happy overcomers to meet and share the victories of their walk that week!
 
In the Greek language Paul when writing to Timothy used two key distinct words to show the difference.

The word teach comes from the word "didasko." Throughout the writings of Paul and the apostles they used this as the word to describe what they were to do with their disciples. They were to didasko the graphe (teach the Scriptures). They were to rebuke, correct, train, disciple, and build the disciples.

In many cases today the colleges and seminaries are doing more of what the church ought to be doing. Many seminarians today have been taught, trained, discipled, rebuked, and corrected as they were taught the word of God. As one famous mission agency has said, "The College and Seminary is now doing what the first century church did."

The word preach (euangelion in the Greek) means to share the gospel. The gospel is for unbelievers and the teaching is the for the believers.

One fella once stated this: "I went to Bible college and Seminary and had more of a church experience there than I did when I went back into my own church. We actually learned, were trained, discipled, and corrected while there. But here at church all I hear is salvation messages and little sugar coated messages. I get no in depth discipleship or teaching here like I did at my Bible College and Seminary."

I think someone said here, maybe Tlaloc, that our churches need to produce schools and I agree. The church of the NT resembled for the saints more of what we do in the schools, and seminaries today. They met at various days of the week, they were instructed/taught by older people in the Lord, they were discipled and were expected to meet certain standards in the fellowship. Our colleges and seminaries today sometimes have better standards and requirements than do our churches. It ought not to be this way but it is.

But then again, this requires that our leaders sacrifice because this type of standard is so tough few will attend a church that has this requirement. Very few men and women today want to be disciples. They want to talk a lot, speak about the newest fad that they think they have received from the Spirit, which is so often nothing more than misguided unbiblical thinking that contradicts the Word (mysticism is what I am referring to here not Spirit impressions that align with Scripture), or they want to be leaders before they are ever led.

Thus it requires sacrifice to build that type of ministry and just as there are few who will pay the price to be a disciple so too there are few leaders willing to pay the price to truly do discipleship.

But there are plenty who will sit around and grumble and complain but when the rubber hits the road to actually do something about it the numbers drastically fall and we find only the remnant. That is sufficient though, as the Lord would rather work with a few faithful than with a massive number of unfaithful.

Dr. Allen
 
There was once Church that believed that if you commit even one sin you will lose your salvation.

Altar calls were considered really important there. In a Church like that those who were just "saved" last month might go to Altar call.

When I saw their Church service it appeared like salvation by works a whole lot quicker than when they taught Bible study.

That being said, they taught many true things, about how you don't have to commit sins, true things that other Churches should be teaching.

You would think that the idea that committing even one sin would cause you to lose your salvation would result in a more moral life, but instead they started using words like "mistake", "bad judgmental call", "just being children" (who happen to put spiders in people's hair, knowing people will get angry, like all other children, but are not sinning in the process) etc.
 
I see nothing wrong with telling people after worship service, Bible Study and other Church meetings that if they want they can come up (in separate gender groups) to pray for other people and or receive prayer. This does not prevent them also from asking for prayer in private instead of just public. I think this can be a good practice. Would this count as an altar call? I do not know, it depends on what you mean by altar call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top