• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

The Invitation System and the Altar Call

8. The invitation system replaces our Father in heaven with the pastor. He stands up front and continually tries to draw people by telling them to "Come!" But Jesus says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44). He says nothing of pastors pleading and cajoling people by human effort to come.
It does teach the opposite of scripture. Forget about John 6:44a, No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:

It teaches when we are ready, we can go to Him. It is up to us.
 
9. The altar call gives the false impression that the preacher is, as Iain H. Murray puts it in the book cited above (p. 10) a "spiritual obstetrician," needed to supervise someone's spiritual new birth. The Bible supports no such idea.
Yep
 
10. The invitation system confuses what or who we are to come to. Again, in John 6:44, Jesus says, "No one can come to me" (emphasis added). He says nothing about coming to the front of a room or to a bench or to an altar. We don't come to Christ by walking to Him. We come to Him inwardly, spiritually.

11. The invitation system implies that man has an ability he does not. Even if someone argues that the pastor is only calling people to Christ, it is still wrong. Sinful men are totally depraved and completely unable to come to Christ by their own efforts,5 so the pleadings of the preacher mean nothing.

12. The invitation system misrepresents God's will. The preacher gives the impression that God definitely wants everyone who is not saved to come down the aisle. The preacher's command to come is equated with a command from God. But Scripture never says anything of God wanting people to come down an aisle. And, beyond that, it may be that no
Agree 100%
 
Is Romans 10:9, "...if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised Him out from the dead, you will be saved.." relevant here? Why, or why not? (Not saying that I disagree with your thesis, btw.)
 
I just can't see anything wrong with someone making a public proclamation of his desire to be guided by the Lord.
John the Baptist asked people to make a public proclamation, and Jesus didn't have a problem with that.
 
I just can't see anything wrong with someone making a public proclamation of his desire to be guided by the Lord.
John the Baptist asked people to make a public proclamation, and Jesus didn't have a problem with that.
It isn't the public proclamation that is being objected to. (By most posters.) It depends of what is preached before the call to come forward, and it is the way in which the "invitational" prayer is often worded. As the lesser inviting the greater to be Lord of their life. Or to come in and dine with them. Jesus is Lord. He is everybody's Lord and judge. We owe him. He does not owe us. If the call is answered from the person's heart, then fine. No one comes to him knowing everything. Usually not knowing much of anything. A hard heart will not do that. If it is not a hard heart it is because God has softened it, turning them towards him instead of away from him which is the condition of the natural man.
 
I just can't see anything wrong with someone making a public proclamation of his desire to be guided by the Lord.
Neither do I.
 
Is Romans 10:9, "...if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised Him out from the dead, you will be saved.." relevant here? Why, or why not? (Not saying that I disagree with your thesis, btw.)
What happen to verse 10?

context is very important, I'm sure you agree.
 
Is Romans 10:9, "...if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised Him out from the dead, you will be saved.." relevant here? Why, or why not? (Not saying that I disagree with your thesis, btw.)
Don't you see both regeneration and conversion?
 
Is Romans 10:9, "...if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised Him out from the dead, you will be saved.." relevant here? Why, or why not? (Not saying that I disagree with your thesis, btw.)
Yes, it is relevant. It refutes the Calvinist concept of election. Romans 10 makes it clear that believing and confessing are requirements for being saved. The Calvinist concept of election denies any such requirements.

As I said above, the only problem with the invitation system is that it is inconsistent with the false doctrines of Calvinism.
 
Don't you see both regeneration and conversion?
Yep I do. But I've heard arguments here using the word "conversion" 20 different ways. It's getting more and more difficult feeling like I'm talking about the same thing, even if they are both results of the same thing.
 
Yes, it is relevant. It refutes the Calvinist concept of election. Romans 10 makes it clear that believing and confessing are requirements for being saved. The Calvinist concept of election denies any such requirements.

As I said above, the only problem with the invitation system is that it is inconsistent with the false doctrines of Calvinism.
Actually, Romans 10 compliments Calvinism. It's obvious you cannot see regeneration and conversion in the passage.
 
Yes, it is relevant. It refutes the Calvinist concept of election. Romans 10 makes it clear that believing and confessing are requirements for being saved. The Calvinist concept of election denies any such requirements.

As I said above, the only problem with the invitation system is that it is inconsistent with the false doctrines of Calvinism.
I've been urged to put you on ignore. PLEASE explain, how Romans 10 makes it clear that believing and confessing are requirements for becoming saved. All I see there is that if you do this you will be saved. That could (apart from the rest of scripture) mean that they are a cause of regeneration and salvation, or it could mean they are a RESULT of regeneration (and salvation). The Greek is not specific, and the context even less surely presenting any notion of "cause". You want something we do to cause salvation. I want to know how that is possible, when salvation is by GRACE. Is it only partly of grace?

Failing that, you could at least admit there is more than one way to look at your references, that you think prove Calvinism wrong.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it is relevant. It refutes the Calvinist concept of election. Romans 10 makes it clear that believing and confessing are requirements for being saved. The Calvinist concept of election denies any such requirements.

As I said above, the only problem with the invitation system is that it is inconsistent with the false doctrines of Calvinism.
Calvinism (or the Doctrines of Grace) certainly does not deny the requires to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and to repent/confess to be saved. For example, the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, which is based on the Doctrines of Grace, includes this on saving faith or belief: "The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word; by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened." The same confession has a whole chapter on repentance.






1 2 Cor. 4:13; Eph. 2:8
 
Actually, Romans 10 compliments Calvinism. It's obvious you cannot see regeneration and conversion in the passage.
Oh, I can see regeneration and justification in the passage. I don't agree with your definition of conversion, but that is a different subject. But I absolutely do not see your concept of election in that passage; and that because it is not there. There is nothing in Romans 10 that speaks about any of TULIP -- nothing. In Calvinism, faith comes not by hearing but by being regenerated. Romans 10 rejects that. To be saved is to be regenerated, justified and (initially) sanctified; thus, to be regenerated is to be saved.
 
I've been urged to put you on ignore. PLEASE explain, how Romans 10 makes it clear that believing and confessing are requirements for becoming saved. All I see there is that if you do this you will be saved. That could (apart from the rest of scripture) mean that they are a cause of regeneration and salvation, or it could mean they are a RESULT of regeneration (and salvation). The Greek is not specific, and the context even less surely presenting any notion of "cause". You want something we do to cause salvation. I want to know how that is possible, when salvation is by GRACE. Is it only partly of grace?

Failing that, you could at least admit there is more than one way to look at your references, that you think prove Calvinism wrong.
Faith is the fundamental requirement or condition for being saved. It is not the only one, but it certainly is the critical one. And that comes by hearing the word of God (the word about Christ) not from regeneration. Regeneration is one aspect of being saved. Justification and (initial) sanctification are two other aspects of being saved. All occur at the same instant in time in the life of the repentant believer. To be saved is to be regenerated, justified and (initially) sanctified and that comes through faith which comes by hearing.
 
Last edited:
Calvinism (or the Doctrines of Grace) certainly does not deny the requires to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and to repent/confess to be saved. For example, the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, which is based on the Doctrines of Grace, includes this on saving faith or belief: "The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word; by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened." The same confession has a whole chapter on repentance.






1 2 Cor. 4:13; Eph. 2:8
The grace of faith??? Faith in God is believing in God. That is by definition. They are one and the same. Faith is not enabling to believe in God. Faith is believing in God.
 
The grace of faith??? Faith in God is believing in God. That is by definition. They are one and the same. Faith is not enabling to believe in God. Faith is believing in God.
I agree that faith and belief are the same, and having faith in God is the same as believing in God. Indeed I am told that the two English words translate the same word, pistis, in New Testament Greek. And a person has faith because of God's grace, or undeserved favour, which I imagine is why the Confession used the phrase, "The grace of faith."
 
I agree that faith and belief are the same, and having faith in God is the same as believing in God. Indeed I am told that the two English words translate the same word, pistis, in New Testament Greek. And a person has faith because of God's grace, or undeserved favour, which I imagine is why the Confession used the phrase, "The grace of faith."
The concept of faith because of God's grace is a bit of confusion. God's grace is the basis for, among other things, the special revelation of His written word. It is that written word which presents the gospel message which one either believes or rejects. In believing God's word and thereby believing in God, i.e., having faith in God, Romans 10 says that one is saved. Thus, in being saved, one is justified, regenerated and (initially) sanctified.
 
I agree that faith and belief are the same. Indeed I am told that the two English words translate the same word, pistis, in New Testament Greek. And a person has faith because of God's grace, or undeserved favour.

The concept of faith because of God's grace is a bit of confusion. God's grace is the basis for, among other things, the special revelation of His written word. It is that written word which presents the gospel message which one either believes or rejects. In believing God's word and thereby believing in God, i.e., having faith in God, Romans 10 says that one is saved. Thus, in being saved, one is justified, regenerated and (initially) sanctified.
I don't think it causes confusion to say that faith/belief comes as a result of God's grace. It fits with what Paul writes in Ephesians 2 where he repeatedly says that salvation is all of God's grace.
 
Back
Top