The Invitation System and the Altar Call

[ReverendRV]

Personally, I think it is worse that confusion; I think it is wrong. Fortunately for all of us, one can be both wrong and saved.

Calvinism is easily proven to be correct. The first proof is that we're Saved by Grace; the Unmerited Favor of God...

Don't you agree?

 

[Rescued One]

.

 

[Dave]

I went to a Pentecostal church that used alter calls at the end of every sermon. Unfortunately, for the most part, the sermons were always simple salvation sermons and never really taught anything of substance. The method, if you will, was to invite the world into the church and that way the Body didn't carry the burden of proclaiming the gospel, they just invited people to come and listen. And the Pastor didn't carry the burden of learning the Bible enough to teach beyond the very simple messages. My complaint was that we should make coverts outside, then invite them inside. Most modern churches operate by way of alter calls. It's a perfect haven for false teachers because they aren't exposed very easily.

Dave

 

[Josheb]

Does anyone see anything wrong with Billy Graham's invitation?

No.

The criticisms of the "invitational system" I have read usually complain it is not the precedent set in the NT (As is the case with Post #3). The (typically unstated) argument being, "If something is not in the Bible then it is wrong and should not be done," but 1) the Bible is not exhaustive and 2) there are many practices that are not stipulated but nonetheless permissible and profitable. If we were to adhere specifically and rigidly to the NT examples then we would have to wait on the sinner to ask, "What must I do to be saved?" We could preach and preach but never ask. Aside from the fact the criticism described in Post 3 is an argument from silence (what scripture never states), were we to abide by that measure (which itself is never stated in scripture) then we would have to abandon church buildings (buildings built specifically for and especially for Christian religious practices) and we'd have to limit fellowship to people's houses. We'd have to get rid of all the lecterns and pulpits, the stages upon which they sit, the use of sound systems, and the practice of having one single individual responsible for the spiritual well-being of everyone else in the congregation, just to name a few other practices that are nowhere found in scripture.


That being said, it is my observation that the chief fault with the invitation system is that it usually lacks follow up. Even when there is a taking of a person's name and a follow-up phone call for a person repents and states a belief in Christ, that's not the same as an integration into a local body of believers. That is the biggest problem practically speaking, but theologically speaking the problem of experientialism is HUGE (as is cited in Post #4). Replacing creedalism with experientialism has led to a plethora of problems cognitively, doctrinally and, in turn, practically. We have millions of people thinking they are Christians merely because they mouthed some words that, in their minds, make them Christians (which, as Post 9 observes, is a work). Many of them (like Billy Graham??? ) became teachers who propagated that thinking. It's worth noting Mr. Graham was a Dispensational Premillennialists who made a lot of money of preaching and the selling of books where predictions that were made never came true.

My own conversion took place as a consequence of God's use of an altar call and I have never looked back to life before Christ with any appeal. Otherwise, I might never have answered the question never asked (or God would have found another way ). I suspect an altar call in a doctrinally sound congregation can have enormously positive effect for the kingdom of God but, alternatively, the same call in a doctrinally deficient congregation can be just another diversion and possible one of the many lanes in the very wide road leading to hell.


I'll stop here but there are some problems with most of the other criticisms, too. Although each has some veracity, the criticisms of the invitational system are not well argued (for example, sola scriptura does not preclude something new, and altar calls are not always to the front of the room where the altar is located).

 

[ReverendRV]

My own conversion took place as a consequence of God's use of an altar call and I have never looked back to life before Christ with any appeal. Otherwise, I might never have answered the question never asked (or God would have found another way ). I suspect an altar call in a doctrinally sound congregation can have enormously positive effect for the kingdom of God but, alternatively, the same call in a doctrinally deficient congregation can be just another diversion and possible one of the many lanes in the very wide road leading to hell.

All Church Doctrines such as Alter Calls, need to be grounded in the Fundamental of God's Providence...

Altar Calls are Providential; whether we are for them or against them...

 

[Carbon]

People think they are saved because they went forward. The preacher also thinks the person was saved.

Yes, thats the way it is with some.

 

[makesends]

Yes, thats the way it is with some.

I remember telling one guy who thought someone was saved, "Well, it didn't take..."

 

[Rescued One]

I remember telling one guy who thought someone was saved, "Well, it didn't take..."

I haven't witnessed the positive results and it's hard to know in very large churches. But I've witnessed people who think they are Christians but their lifestyle doesn't reflect that they are. I don't want to judge yet the word of God describes people who are going to hell.

 

[Rescued One]

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 think God converts us so that we believe and genuine confession is the result.

 

[Josheb]

All Church Doctrines such as Alter Calls, need to be grounded in the Fundamental of God's Providence...

I completely agree but "providence" is a vague and often misused word. As far as the op goes, I see nothing unscriptural about inviting someone to surrender their life to Jesus knowing God has already been at work in that individual's life for the purpose of their salvific end long before I ask. God Himself once asked a bunch of sinners to come reason with Him for that very purpose.

Isaiah 1:18-20
"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they will be like wool. If you consent and obey, you will eat the best of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword." Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken.


If that passage can correctly be construed to imply an invitation to salvation, then the criticism saying there's no such precedent in scripture is incorrect.

Altar Calls are Providential; whether we are for them or against them...

Wellll..... in the sense that every second of creation is a function of God's sovereignty, then yes, altar calls can be considered divinely providential. I believe every moment of evangelism (and/or apologetics) is a divine moment and, therefore, providential, simply because the outcomes cannot escape soteriological impact. The exact same cross that saves also condemns. It is a potentially frightful thing to share the gospel lest we be instrumental in the hearer's denial or communicate in a manner that furthers the hardening of the already existing hard heart. Once having heard the gospel is it impossible to deny that event. God will most certainly replay the video when the creature stands in protest before Him. One critique of the altar call I did not read (although it may have been included) is the risk of unwittingly inviting the respondent to be a poseur. My particular conversion was comparable to Saul's Damascus Road experience, so I do not know how anyone human can orchestrate that. How often do altar calls involve God rending the fabric of time and space to speak to each individual, literally calling them out of darkness into life, dragging them from death to life, and how many altar calls are merely some form of emotional appeal and psycho-social manipulation that is nothing more than works of flesh on both sides of the invitation? How many evangelists have done that deliberately, and how many unwittingly. How many manipulators have been used by God anyway? Millions have been authentically saved hearing Billy Graham. Could lesser numbers be attributed to Benny Hinn? After all, Who is actually in charge?

 

[ReverendRV]

how many altar calls are merely some form of emotional appeal and psycho-social manipulation that is nothing more than works of flesh on both sides of the invitation? How many evangelists have done that deliberately, and how many unwittingly. How many manipulators have been used by God anyway? Millions have been authentically saved hearing Billy Graham. Could lesser numbers be attributed to Benny Hinn? After all, Who is actually in charge?

I see you agree with me, but with clarification. I'm a Fundamentalist, a Lower Common Denominator kind of guy, so I think most people do agree with me with little push back; though they may want to push back, but Fundamentals are hard to deny. I reckon we need to sooner or later ask why anyone would want to rule out Alter Calls; what is the motivating factor?

Is it the Objection to Free Will, or is it in support of Unconditional Election? It's probably not these, because we will be made Willing on the Day of his Power; and we KNOW Election is not of the Will; so there's no real good reason to object to an Alter Call, especially when there are a few examples of Calls in the Bible. The First Premise given to Us was that there are no Biblical examples, so the P1 is flawed...

 

[prism]

I was reading a few articles about the invitation system and the alter call, and I thought I would share some here.

The Invitation System and the Altar Call
For the start of this thread, the credit goes to: Peter Ditzel

I am going to ask you to come forward. Up there—down there—I want you to come. You come right now quickly. If you are with friends or relatives, they will wait for you. Don't let distance keep you from Christ. It's a long way, but Christ went all the way to the Cross because He loved you. Certainly you can come these few steps and give your life to Him . . .

{Italics mine}
Does anyone see anything wrong with Billy Graham's invitation?
I sure do.
Some may be in support of the invitation system, and it is also very good to understand it and know why many Christians are against it as well.
Let's see what Mr. Ditzel has to say about it"

Sounds a bit like Tetzel's plea in drumming up support for indulgences...

"As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory doth spring"

 

[Arial]

Isaiah 1:18-20
"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they will be like wool. If you consent and obey, you will eat the best of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword." Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

This was spoken to a covenantal people already in a covenant with God.

 

[Josheb]

This was spoken to a covenantal people already in a covenant with God.

My impulse is to say, "Yes, but they were not all saved," but the larger truth is those words were spoken to Sodom and Gomorrah, not covenant Israel.

Isaiah 1:10-11
Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom; give ear to the instruction of our God, you people of Gomorrah. "What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?" Says the LORD. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed cattle; and I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats.

By the time Isaiah reiterated those words Sodom and Gomorrah had long since been destroyed by God and resettled by conquering Hebrews/Jews of the covenant God initiated with Abraham and Jesus, so I take the reference of Sodom and Gomorrah to be figurative, not literal. The reference is one used in scripture to be indicative of those either not living up to a covenant relationship or those discharged from a covenant relationship. Either way there were covenant Jews and non-covenant Gentiles living in those cities. Regardless of who lived there, from the monergistic perspective those words would prove true only for those God had decided were elect, or those predestined from eternity. The invitational aspect of verse 18, therefore, still stands and applies to any given group in which elect might exist. Just as any given congregation contains people who incorrectly think of themselves as saved and people posing as saved, there are some among both groups God has nonetheless decided to save, whether they know it or not. Of course, if someone is synergist then everyone and anyone is fair game for the invitation present in verse 18.

 

[Dave]

Does anyone see anything wrong with Billy Graham's invitation?

This may be a bit off topic, but worth noting. I was handing out Gospel tracts from Billy Graham. Someone pointed out to me something I didn't notice. In one place, Billy Graham said "Your God" instead of "God". I stopped handing out those tracks. Maybe his intentions were good, but...too open ended of a statement for my taste.

Dave

 

[Josheb]

I see you agree with me, but with clarification. I'm a Fundamentalist, a Lower Common Denominator kind of guy, so I think most people do agree with me with little push back; though they may want to push back, but Fundamentals are hard to deny.

I consider myself a (conservative) fundamentalist, as well. On this particular topic I think the angels and devils are in the details and categorical acceptance or denial of the so called "invitational system" are prone to error once examined more closely.

I reckon we need to sooner or later ask why anyone would want to rule out Alter Calls; what is the motivating factor?

Great question but 1) I don't want to go far afield of the op and 2) the only person who can state any motive is the self. It's not my job to assign motive to another unless 1) the individual has already disclosed a motive or 2) there is objective evidence sufficient to support a definitive appraisal. I have no reason to suspect Mr. Ditzel has malevolent motive other than to oppose Armstrongianism (and rightly and justly so). There is a lot of history that could be considered relevant to the invitational system since it became common practice during the Restoration Movement which, sadly, restored very little and proved more problematics and destructive than it was restorative and orthodox. The Worldwide Church of God was just one of many sects arising in the 19th century that employed the invitational system. That doesn't mean the invitational system itself is wrong. John Wayne Gacy may have used a bat to kill his dinner but that does not mean all uses of a bat or the bat itself are wrong.

Is it the Objection to Free Will, or is it in support of Unconditional Election?

I assume in your case and mine it would be a support of UC but, as I have already expressed, that does not preclude the use of an "altar call" or some other form of invitation to be brought from death to life, confess, repent, receive forgiveness. As you may recall, it is my position the sinner's will is irrelevant and the Arm v Cal debate is a red herring wherever it tries to address any agency of any sinner's volition. I, therefore, take a much different view of the invitation/call than most.

It's probably not these, because we will be made Willing on the Day of his Power; and we KNOW Election is not of the Will;

100%

...so there's no real good reason to object to an Alter Call,

I disagree. Because of the misuse of the invitation/call, and the adverse effects it may have there are reasons to oppose it. Yes, all misuses and effects fall within the sovereignty of God but so, too, does sin in all its other forms. We do not resist sin because God is in charge. We resist sin because God is at work within us to do so.

...especially when there are a few examples of Calls in the Bible.

Yes, I have been thinking about this notion there's no scriptural basis and I can find many precedents. The parables of the guests (Lk. 14) and the wedding feast (Mt. 22) could be added to Isaiah 1:18.

The First Premise given to Us was that there are no Biblical examples, so the P1 is flawed...

Yep.

 

[ReverendRV]

Yes, I have been thinking about this notion there's no scriptural basis and I can find many precedents. The parables of the guests (Lk. 14) and the wedding feast (Mt. 22) could be added to Isaiah 1:18.

Post in thread 'The Invitation System and the Altar Call'

May 5, 2025

I've always imagined that if I were ever able to Preach a Sermon, I would end it by saying something Biblical; something in accord with Isaiah 55:1-3...

Come, all you who are thirsty,
come to the waters;
and you who have no money,
come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without cost.
Why spend money on what is not bread,
and your labor on what does not satisfy?
Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good,
and you will delight in the richest of fare.
Give ear and come to [Jesus];
listen, that you may live.
[He] will make an everlasting covenant with...

• ReverendRV

• 
• 

Post in thread 'The Invitation System and the Altar Call'

May 5, 2025

Why the Invitation System/Altar Call Should Not Be Used

1. There is not a single instance in the Bible of Christians using an altar call or invitation to come forward. If God intended this as a method of evangelizing, why didn't He say so or give us an example in His Word?

Amen to that.

Obviously, I think God did give us an example of an Alter Call in his Word...

Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters
These are the words not of the prophet, but of the Lord, as what follows throughout the chapter shows; and are directed to the Gentiles, as Aben...

• ReverendRV

Post in thread 'The Invitation System and the Altar Call'

May 5, 2025

I've always imagined that if I were ever able to Preach a Sermon, I would end it by saying something Biblical; something in accord with Isaiah 55:1-3...

Come, all you who are thirsty,
come to the waters;
and you who have no money,
come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without cost.
Why spend money on what is not bread,
and your labor on what does not satisfy?
Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good,
and you will delight in the richest of fare.
Give ear and come to [Jesus];
listen, that you may live.
[He] will make an everlasting covenant...

• ReverendRV

 

[Arial]

My impulse is to say, "Yes, but they were not all saved," but the larger truth is those words were spoken to Sodom and Gomorrah, not covenant Israel.

Isaiah 1:10-11
Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom; give ear to the instruction of our God, you people of Gomorrah. "What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?" Says the LORD. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed cattle; and I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats.

By the time Isaiah reiterated those words Sodom and Gomorrah had long since been destroyed by God and resettled by conquering Hebrews/Jews of the covenant God initiated with Abraham and Jesus, so I take the reference of Sodom and Gomorrah to be figurative, not literal. The reference is one used in scripture to be indicative of those either not living up to a covenant relationship or those discharged from a covenant relationship. Either way there were covenant Jews and non-covenant Gentiles living in those cities. Regardless of who lived there, from the monergistic perspective those words would prove true only for those God had decided were elect, or those predestined from eternity. The invitational aspect of verse 18, therefore, still stands and applies to any given group in which elect might exist. Just as any given congregation contains people who incorrectly think of themselves as saved and people posing as saved, there are some among both groups God has nonetheless decided to save, whether they know it or not. Of course, if someone is synergist then everyone and anyone is fair game for the invitation present in verse 18.

A bit of a contradiction there. "Those words were spoken to Sodom and Gomorrah" and "I take the reference of Sodom and Gomorrah to be figurative, not literal".

Is 1: 1 The vision of Isaiah the son Of Amos, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah.

Then we have "The Wickedness of Judah" 2-20. (9-10) If the Lord of hosts had not left us a few survivors, we should have been like Sodom, and become like Gomorrah. Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching of our God, you people of Gommorrah! Then it goes on to speak of the sacrifices and burnt offerings that were being offered in Judah, blemished and vain. The new moon and Sabbath festivals and convocations have become a hateful burden to him. So they are being compared to Sodom and Gommorrah.

18-19 Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.

That is not an example of an altar call in the Bible. It is a call to a covenant people to return to covenant faithfulness or else. Altar calls are theoretically given to entice people to make a decision for Christ. As an aside, and oddly enough, when people are presenting the choice side of the debate, they never say we make a choice for Christ, but instead say, we choose whether to believe or not.

 

[Josheb]

A bit of a contradiction there. "Those words were spoken to Sodom and Gomorrah" and "I take the reference of Sodom and Gomorrah to be figurative, not literal".

No, no contradiction. The words were spoken to a figurative Sodom and Gomorrah. That is important. It's also the facts of the text.

Then we have "The Wickedness of Judah" 2-20. (9-10) If the Lord of hosts had not left us a few survivors, we should have been like Sodom, and become like Gomorrah. Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching of our God, you people of Gommorrah! Then it goes on to speak of the sacrifices and burnt offerings that were being offered in Judah, blemished and vain. The new moon and Sabbath festivals and convocations have become a hateful burden to him. So they are being compared to Sodom and Gommorrah.

18-19 Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.

Yep. And nothing I posted previously should be construed in any way to say otherwise.

These are very important details when it comes to the established covenant and its membership.

That is not an example of an altar call in the Bible. It is a call to a covenant people to return to covenant faithfulness or else.

It's a call but not a call? What is the difference between an invitation and a call? The Oxford dictionary cites "call" as a synonym for "invitation." So does the thesaurus. Why can a call to formerly covenant people who gone wayward to return to faithfulness not be used to call sinners outside of that covenant to repentance?

Acts 17:22-31
So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.' Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising him from the dead."


That audience was not one of Jews with an established covenant. God, through Paul, was declaring everyone in that audience to repent. Some did. Most did not. Oddly, paradoxically, in my recent survey of invitations in the Bible, especially in the NT, I have found it is sinners and outsiders who most often do the inviting! Jesus was invited to eat and speak at Matthew's and the homes of many others. The Ethiopian invited Philip, Cornelius invited Peter. Should those verses be taken to mean the gospel can be preached to individuals only when they have invited it? No, of course not. Why then should all invitations from the preacher, the "invitation system" as a whole, be discarded as unscriptural?

Altar calls are theoretically given to entice people to make a decision for Christ.

Theoretically? I would like to see evidence for that in the words of an altar caller. Even were it true the call is an enticement, so what? Sinners cannot be enticed to believe and call on the Son of God if God is at work in their lives to do so? What if altar calls were theoretically devices used by God to drag sinners to His Son?

As an aside, and oddly enough, when people are presenting the choice side of the debate, they never say we make a choice for Christ, but instead say, we choose whether to believe or not.

I do not. I was converted to Christ via an altar call and while I was Arminian for many years I have been a stalwart advocate of monergism for multiple decades while still holding to the altar call experience. I simply assign everything to God instead of humans. I assume I am not the only one who has ever had an experience as divinely decided as my own, considering the millions of people who have responded to altar calls over the last two centuries.

 

[Arial]

The words were spoken to a figurative Sodom and Gomorrah. That is important. It's also the facts of the text.

They were spoken to Judah and Jerusalem, It says so in verse 1. Their sins were compared to those of Sodom and Gomorrah, Read the full text. Nothing in it was ever spoken to Sodom and Gomorrah. He is not speaking to a figurative S and G. He is speaking to Judah and Jerusalem.