Are Altar Calls Biblical?
“The success rate of genuine conversions at crusades hovers between 5% to 15%. Some may argue, ‘But seeds are planted.’ Yes, seeds are planted, but are they seeds of salvation or seeds of false assurance?”
- 158 views
Why is it that a preacher, at the conclusion of the sermon, may “invite” those who have Gospel questions to speak to him or any others he may designate is not considered by many to have given a legitimate invitation?
I would venture the assertion that a Gospel invitation does not require an altar call or any of the aforementioned abuses. As one man told me, “I can invite somebody to lunch and it doesn’t take me 20 minutes.
There are numerous Biblical examples of inviting people to believe the Gospel but none of them resemble altar calls and invitations to walk an aisle.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I have no problem with invitations, if they’re done right. For what I believe “right” is, see my comments on Chafer, somewhere above.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[David R. Brumbelow]It seems to me 90% of the criticism of the public invitation is criticizing the misuse and abuse of the invitation or altar call. From a pro-invitation viewpoint:
Why I Give A Public Invitation by Evangelist Junior Hill
http://sbctoday.com/why-i-give-a-public-invitation/
David R. Brumbelow
Looking at David’s link to Junior Hill’s column, it’s interesting that he’s using circular reasoning to argue that invitations were given in the Scriptures. He starts with the assumption that where there is response, there is an invitation, see the response (but no recorded invitation) in Scripture, and then concludes…shazam.…that there must have been altar calls. It’s the creatio ex nihilo of argument, really.
But when we look at Acts 2, one of the passages Hill mentions, what we see is Peter more or less saying “Jews of Jerusalem, you have committed a capital crime that ought to consign you to being stoned and consigned to eternity in Hell.” Are we to seriously claim that someone so confronted, rightly or wrongly, would not respond? To argue that an altar call must have been used insults the intelligence of the crowd, really. Would any of us, told by our lawyer that the DA had evidence that should send us to the gallows, require an invitation before asking the same question the Jews of Jerusalem asked: “What then shall we do?” In the same way, the Ethiopian eunuch did not need an altar call to respond to the fact that his promised Messiah had come, and the Phillippian gaoler needed no altar call to realize that something big was afoot when all of the doors opened on their own. It was simply a natural, logical response to events. We may as well argue that we need an altar call to cheer when our favorite team scores!
In my experience, too many altar calls are more or less a second sermon, where the pastor talks for 30 minutes about what he wants to talk about (“how ‘bout them Patriots?”), and then spends the last five or ten minutes seeing if people will respond to Christ. Well, maybe if we instead preached His Word as it’s written for 20 minutes or so, we might be surprised what the Holy Spirit does, no?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The criticisms of altar calls in this discussion generally seem to follow 2 themes: Misuse/Abuse and Lack of Scriptural Examples. I submit that neither of these demonstrate that altar calls are wrong or not necessary. I use altar calls in about 20% of message. Used properly and wisely, they can be effective and helpful in the right message. I also stress that I am available to meet with people after the service in a more private setting.
As far as a lack of specific Biblical examples: Yes, some who attempt to justify altar calls overplay their argument by “reading into” the Biblical text what isn’t there. That, of course, is wrong and dishonest. But the lack of Biblical example does not automatically prevent the use of altar calls. As I have mentioned before, that type of reasoning would eliminate many practices which we follow today, such as Sunday School, VBS, Summer Camps, etc.
This thread is making a mountain out of a molehill. So what if some people want to use altar calls? If they do it properly and carefully, respecting people’s emotions, what’s wrong with that? If some do not want to use altar calls, that’s fine too. There are many ways the Lord can use to reach the heart at the end of a good message.
If we eliminate everything in church that has been abused/misused by believers, we won’t have anything left to use.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
Debates often get stuck in meta-debate of one sort or other. By meta-debate I mean anything that is not actually relevant, which takes alot of forms: views nobody really holds, disputes about how people debating rather than the merits of their claims, personal stuff, etc.
In this case, it might help filter out some metadebate if we remove a view that nobody actually holds to: the position that altar calls are always done properly by everyone and never abused at all.
Since nobody holds that position, there’s no point in arguing that sometimes invitations are done badly. That’s pretty much agreed. We can stipulate it and move on.
But I hear somebody objecting, “No it’s not sometimes it’s a whole lot of the time.” OK, but we still have to ask what view does that observation support?
- View A: Nobody should do altar calls because they are frequently done very badly
- View B: Nobody should do altar calls because they are always done very badly… there is no good way to do it.
It should be obvious that View A is pretty unsupportable. So the “frequently” argument is once again not relevant. It can’t realy support View A and it contributes nothing to View B.
View B is pretty hard to prove, period.
Probably the most potentially supportable views are going to be more moderate. They end up being stronger views because they’re well supported. In this case, maybe the View C: Altar calls are inherently prone to abuse and accomplish nothing of value that can’t be achieved some other way.
On the flip side, the view that it’s wrong not have altar calls is the hardest to support (View D). A more moderate and supportable view might be View E: Altar calls are not inherently prone to abuse and can accomplish some things better than the alternatives.
So if View E and View C go head to head, we can skip all the stories about bad invitations… and all the stories about good ones.. not relevant. The challenge is to prove or disprove inherent tendency toward abuse and/or unique effectiveness.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Yesterday, as usual, we had an altar call at my church. A lady responded by joining our church. Recently a man responded by trusting Jesus as his Savior. Later he followed the Lord in baptism.
As a boy, I trusted the Lord as my Savior during a Sunday morning public altar call.
It works.
By the way, there is no biblical precedent (although there is for an invitation) for handing out gospel tracts and Bibles, and presenting the Word on Radio, TV, the internet. But they work too.
David R. Brumbelow
I’ve never gone forward during an invitation in my entire life.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
…in a private counseling session or public invitation.
- “As in most things Scriptural where abuse has been evident or is likely, balance is the key (and usually missing) ingredient
- So what is the proper method of drawing the net, of challenging an individual or collective group to respond to the message of the Gospel and receive Christ?
- As we have already seen the required response to the Gospel for salvation is the same for all but manifests itself through a wide range of observable, objective responses
- Most were baptized (Pentecost; Philippi)
- One prays (Publican)
- Another asks (Samaritan woman)
- Some make a simple declaration (Ethiopian; blind from birth)
- The thief on the cross directly appealed for mercy, etc.
- So, while it is evident that there is no single objective, observable response that absolutely signifies saving faith (belief), I think there is at least one narrative that encapsulates the formula: a Scripture plan for drawing the net, properly and biblically challenging an individual, or a crowd, to act on the convicting power of the Holy Spirit according to the truth of the Gospel and respond to salvation
- Acts 22:10-16 “…And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do…. And one Ananias, a devout man…Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
- Here we have the experience of the Apostle Paul recounted in his own words during his defense before Felix recorded by the historian Luke under inspiration
- Paul recalls how Jesus Christ had arrested him while on his way to Damascus, reproving him of sin, righteousness, and judgment and revealing Himself as the Savior
- IOW, Christ miraculously interjects Himself into the typical work of the Holy Spirit
- Paul once again affirms his response, one common to those convicted who have come face to face with the need for mercy—“What shall I do, Lord?”
- Paul then states the plan of Christ in this experience, that he should go to a specific spot, and one (Ananias) would come and confirm his experience, communicate the Scriptural truth of what has been perceived, and then “draw the net” in bringing Paul to true conversion
- Paul recalls how Jesus Christ had arrested him while on his way to Damascus, reproving him of sin, righteousness, and judgment and revealing Himself as the Savior
- Here we have the experience of the Apostle Paul recounted in his own words during his defense before Felix recorded by the historian Luke under inspiration
- This account gives us tremendous insight into the stratagem of Ananias, under the express direction of Jesus Christ Himself, to persuade Paul to respond to salvation
- Ananias’ closing argument—drawing the net if you please—can be summarized as follows:
- Why wait? Why put it off? (“…Why tarriest thou…?”)
- Act now (“…arise…”)
- Openly declare (“…be baptized…”)
- In this case the open declaration is given as a very specific expression
- Call on Christ for salvation (“…calling on the name of the Lord”)
- Conclusion: When all is said and done it is difficult for me to conclude that a methodology of drawing the net in a manner consistent with that utilized by Ananias in the conversion of the Apostle Paul under the direct instruction of Jesus Christ and recorded under inspiration of the Holy Spirit is not an appropriate choice in concluding a Gospel presentation where conviction is evident.”
Lee
Every message should have an “invitation”
My take: a message should have:
- An introduction
- Several key points in some sort of organized way
- A conclusion / could be the “invitation ” to action
in general I am not a fan of the “every head bowed and with no one looking around” … “raise your hand” . … “I see that hand” .. on and on “Just as I am”
But this: “I am available after the service to answer questions and or connect with any interested”
….is a strong C, leaning into seeing a prolonged altar call as a symptom of bad preaching, but I heartily appreciate the distinction many draw here between making a short invitation at the end of a sermon that ties in with the message, and the longer exhortation I’d describe as an altar call.
Agreed that a quick “what are you going to do about this?” or “if you’d like to talk with me….” is great. It’s a coherent way of wrapping things up and “drawing the net”, as Lee says. However, when that morphs into a few minutes of goading people into a response, the thought that arises is so you’re telling me that you’ve got nothing more to say about the Scripture…but you keep talking…. Why?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
It’s not the altar call that is problematic, but the fast and easy evangelism and pragmatic decisionism that accompanies it.
Salvation, at the very least, will entail the convert to understand and believe that
- he is a fallen sinner
- God judges all sin and he will be accountable for his sin
- on his own merit, he is irredeemable due to his sin transgression and sin nature
- his sin will be judged
- his sin can be judged through a substitutionary penal atonement
- the only person capable of satisfying God through a substitutionary penal atonement is a perfect person
- Jesus Christ is the only perfect man
- Jesus Christ is also God
- Jesus Christ is also the Son of God
- Jesus Christ bore his sins in His body and died and was judged in his place
- Jesus Christ is resurrected and living
- Total trust in these truths and repentance from any other world view and repentance from sin is required and necessary to receive eternal life
If our invitation methodology allows for the possibility of explaining these truths cogently and accurately in ten minutes or so, we have utterly deceived ourselves.
John B. Lee
The 1st Christian church I was in was Westwood Baptist in Cheviot OH. I was baptized there at the age of 21.
It was heavy into prolonged alter calls. When someone came forward a church leader would counsel the respondee in the front as the congregation would continue to sing and the preacher would continue to beseech.
Here’s my take on really important matters. Consider:
- Meeting with a financial advisor where one discloses private matters about debt, income, savings and investments OR
- Discussing colon polyps with the gastroenterologist OR
- Having one’s MRI reviewed with some sort of specialist (say a spinal surgeon)
The above are weighty matters. Who would wish to discuss these matters sitting in the first pew of a church while altar call goings on are in progress? No one!
One’s spiritual condition is far weightier and more complex than those things. The best venue and time is NOT “at the altar”
By the way - it’s a table! Not an altar!
Most of these posts seem to assume that altar calls are always for salvation purposes. Why? When I use an altar call, I use it for a variety of purposes - salvation, someone wanting to come & kneel to pray about something important to them, etc. Seems many here are letting the abuses of altar calls influence their opinions. Can someone pray at their seat? Of course. Can someone come & physically kneel before the Lord and pray? Of course; Why not? I wonder if some of the opinions expressed in these posts are coming from Reformed/Calvinistic influences than anything else.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
Wally, although some objection to the prolonged altar call is due to being Reformed or Calvinistic, a lot of it simply has to do with how many of us have seen it used. The pastor spends the first half hour or so talking about the passage he’s chosen—sometimes well, sometimes poorly, sometimes with Gospel, more often legalistically—and then for the last 5-10 minutes, there is an intense exhortation to come to Christ or get right with Christ. About half to two thirds of the sermons I heard in college fit this model, really, and quite a few afterwards, and quite frankly, it gave me quite a bit of distaste for the practice well before I’d read the Institutes (and I am yet not convinced of the full bulb and bloom).
It’s widespread enough that even Hollywood has picked up on it to caricature evangelicals in general.
Again, no problem with a short invitation—it’s simply when it gets to be prolonged, emotionally manipulative, and the like that I’ve got a problem with it. Good rhetoric does not require 5-10 minutes for the speaker to state the main point.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]….is a strong C, leaning into seeing a prolonged altar call as a symptom of bad preaching, but I heartily appreciate the distinction many draw here between making a short invitation at the end of a sermon that ties in with the message, and the longer exhortation I’d describe as an altar call.
Agreed that a quick “what are you going to do about this?” or “if you’d like to talk with me….” is great. It’s a coherent way of wrapping things up and “drawing the net”, as Lee says. However, when that morphs into a few minutes of goading people into a response, the thought that arises is so you’re telling me that you’ve got nothing more to say about the Scripture…but you keep talking…. Why?
Peter might take issue with your take on the altar call as bolded above:
“Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? [FWIW, this is the same question Saul asked in chap. 9] Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. …And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” (Acts 2:37-40)
Assuming there is some sense of chronology going on in this narrative there appears to be some significant cajoling going on after the initial response to the message.
Lee
Discussion