Who invented the invitation system?

[Arial]

You are 100% correct~yet regeneration doe snot come by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Maybe It would serve me to do a thread on regeneration so all would know exactly my understanding. The gospel is for our conversion to the truth. Regeneration and conversion are not the same, even though many connect them as one.

I was not saying that regeneration and conversion were the same thing and I do not believe @Sereni-tea was either. I find in a great many of your posts you do that same thing.Post something as though someone had said something that they did not say. Neither did we say that regeneration comes by hearing---. God may do them simultaneously or he may do it some other way. People can be converted with very little knowledge, because it is a heart change that takes place. A place where faith comes, not blindly, but from eyes opened by God. And not without reason (the operation of our mind) but with both of those and also beyond it. That is why it has to be done by God. If regeneration comes with little knowledge, by the working of the Holy Spirit and from the word, knowledge will be gained over time.

Great confession! Actually I would say that was the first step of your conversion to the truth, seeking God/truth with your new nature God had given to you at some point unknow to you.

I did know it. I actually experienced it while asleep but was also very aware of it. I just at the time did not know that it was regeneration. I did not even know of such a thing. You can not categorize the workings of God to apply to all people. The truth is knowledge gained over time from his word. That is not the same thing as what is known as conversion. Conversion is being fully united with Christ through faith, no matter how small that faith is, or how much knowledge is lacking in it. Conversion is being snatched out of the kingdom of darkness and into the kingdom of the Son of his love.

Are you speaking of conversion, our practical salvation from error, etc.

That is a very bad thing you did by quoting only a part of my sentence and making it look like I said something I did not and that I would never say because I do not believe it. Here is the whole sentence.

So it is incorrect and contradictory to say that God will save all the elect and at the same time say he will not do it in the midst of an altar call. Not all those who respond to altar calls are regenerated. But some of them are.

Your question regarding the portion that you quoted has nothing whatsoever to do with the above.

 

[Josheb]

Before Charles Finney, I do not believe there was an invitation system.
Finney was credited with winning around 500,000 souls before the Civil War. After him we had Moody and finally Billy Graham.

(pssst....don't forget Billy Sunday or Aimee Semple MacPherson )

An invitation system presents the same lie. It's telling you, that you are not really dead, you have free will to choose God and life, it's your decision (decisional regeneration), you can choose life.


Thoughts?

To the degree "invitationalism" is intended by the invitational evangelist to promote experientialism it is heretical. However, when considered in light of the monergist perspective no one can or will hear, understand, or respond to any "invitation" unless first chosen and called by God for that purpose salvifically, the "invitation system" could be understood as a valid method of evangelism. Presuppositions matter.

 

[makesends]

Its not the Son of man Jesus our brother in the lord (flesh and blood) that we receive .All of dying mankind must be born again. Marvel not.

Jesus the Son of man received his second birth like all sons of God believers

God is not a Jewish man as King of kings. . A wile of the evil one .

@Mr GLee
Again, I must ask for a direct answer: Is Jesus Christ come in the flesh?

 

[Carbon]

(pssst....don't forget Billy Sunday or Aimee Semple MacPherson )

To the degree "invitationalism" is intended by the invitational evangelist to promote experientialism it is heretical. However, when considered in light of the monergist perspective no one can or will hear, understand, or respond to any "invitation" unless first chosen and called by God for that purpose salvifically, the "invitation system" could be understood as a valid method of evangelism. Presuppositions matter.

I understand what you’re saying and almost agree. But if something is wrong and heretical, it’s wrong and heretical no matter how we twist it.
It’s misleading giving man the belief he can save himself. It shows him he has free will power. It shows many, including the world that one can choose Christ one minuets then just turn your back on him and live in blatant sin the next minute. It also shows man has a part of his salvation.
It’s from believing the lie in the garden. We can be like God

 

[Arial]

I understand what you’re saying and almost agree. But if something is wrong and heretical, it’s wrong and heretical no matter how we twist it.
It’s misleading giving man the belief he can save himself. It shows him he has free will power. It shows many, including the world that one can choose Christ one minuets then just turn your back on him and live in blatant sin the next minute. It also shows man has a part of his salvation.
It’s from believing the lie in the garden. We can be like God

Yes, that is what is wrong with it, but it does not preclude God from saving them if they are elect, in spite of the wrongness of the teaching or the methods. No matter what anyone does or doesn't believe in that regard, it is still believing that is what matters, and believing from the heart, not just mental assent, and believing in Christ. And no one does that unless God grants it.

 

[Josheb]

I understand what you’re saying and almost agree. But if something is wrong and heretical, it’s wrong and heretical no matter how we twist it.

Incorrect. It may be the "twist" is what makes it heretical.

For example, everyone agrees volition is an essential component of human salvation but what synergists and monergists do with that fact is completely different. It's the Pelagian "twist" of the fact that is deemed heretical by both Augustinian soteriologists (whether they be Reformed Cals or Reformed Arms). An "invitation" is not inherently heresy. If that were the case the the Parable of the Wedding Feast (Mt. 22) would be heretical.

Matthew 22:1-14
Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come. Again he sent out other slaves saying, 'Tell those who have been invited, "Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast."' But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business, and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them. But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. Then he *said to his slaves, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 'Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.' Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests. But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, and he *said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?' And the man was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For many are called, but few are chosen."

Even Jesus invited people to come to God. He simply did so knowing no one could or would answer the invitation unless the Father had dragged that individual to His Son like a fisherman deliberately, strenuously, vigorously, hauls a net full of fish out of the water. If someone like Finney or Graham thought sinners could answer an invitation one their own anytime they wanted using only their Spirit-less sinful faculties of the flesh then they were mistaken.

It’s misleading giving man the belief he can save himself.

I completely agree.

It shows him he has free will power.

I would judge the premise much more harshly than that.

It shows many, including the world that one can choose Christ one [minute] then just turn your back on him and live in blatant sin the next minute. It also shows man has a part of his salvation. It’s from believing the lie in the garden. We can be like God.

Those could be the implications, depending on how the invitation is presented. I would like to read proof that is how the invitationalists presented the invitation, and whether they did so implicitly or explicitly.

Revelation 19:9
Then he said to me, "Write, 'Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.'" And he said to me, "These are true words of God."

There is also a certain irony to this because throughout the scripture it is the one needing to be saved, or the one that will soon be saved that does the inviting of the evangelist into his home. That happens when Jesus sends out the disciples and about a half-dozen times in Acts. If I understand the op's purpose it is to eschew volitionalism and assert divine sovereignty in contradiction to the experientialism of Finney and his soteriological progeny. It's a wretched teaching that leads to wretched practice and further wretched doctrine. The whole of is idolatrous in that it elevates the sinner and his faculties above God.

 

[Sereni-tea]

I was not saying that regeneration and conversion were the same thing and I do not believe @Sereni-tea was either. I find in a great many of your posts you do that same thing.Post something as though someone had said something that they did not say. Neither did we say that regeneration comes by hearing---. God may do them simultaneously or he may do it some other way. People can be converted with very little knowledge, because it is a heart change that takes place. A place where faith comes, not blindly, but from eyes opened by God. And not without reason (the operation of our mind) but with both of those and also beyond it. That is why it has to be done by God. If regeneration comes with little knowledge, by the working of the Holy Spirit and from the word, knowledge will be gained over time.

Thank you @Arial, you are correct. I did not say that regeneration and conversion were the same thing. It is God alone who regenerates a person and enables them to believe the Gospel message. And as you said, they may happen at the same time, or some other way.

And thanks also for your testimony.

 

[Carbon]

Yes, that is what is wrong with it, but it does not preclude God from saving them if they are elect, in spite of the wrongness of the teaching or the methods. No matter what anyone does or doesn't believe in that regard, it is still believing that is what matters, and believing from the heart, not just mental assent, and believing in Christ. And no one does that unless God grants it.

Right. And that's another subject.

 

[Carbon]

Incorrect.

I believe you are incorrect.

For example, everyone agrees volition is an essential component of human salvation but what synergists and monergists do with that fact is completely different. It's the Pelagian "twist" of the fact that is deemed heretical by both Augustinian soteriologists (whether they be Reformed Cals or Reformed Arms). An "invitation" is not inherently heresy. If that were the case the the Parable of the Wedding Feast (Mt. 22) would be heretical.

I agree an invitation is not of itself heresey, I didnt say or mean otherwise. But to have people believe they have a choice and just need to come up and accept Jesus.
If you believe different, if you support decisional regeneration, more power to ya.

Even Jesus invited people to come to God.

What is a preacher suppose to do? Did Jesus invite people to come forward and say a sinners prayer?

He simply did so knowing no one could or would answer the invitation unless the Father had dragged that individual to His Son like a fisherman deliberately, strenuously, vigorously, hauls a net full of fish out of the water.

Which is totally different. Do you know this? If so, will you make up your mind?

If someone like Finney or Graham thought sinners could answer an invitation one their own anytime they wanted using only their Spirit-less sinful faculties of the flesh then they were mistaken.
tly.

Ya think?

 

[Carbon]

Incorrect. It may be the "twist" is what makes it heretical.

For example, everyone agrees volition is an essential component of human salvation but what synergists and monergists do with that fact is completely different. It's the Pelagian "twist" of the fact that is deemed heretical by both Augustinian soteriologists (whether they be Reformed Cals or Reformed Arms). An "invitation" is not inherently heresy. If that were the case the the Parable of the Wedding Feast (Mt. 22) would be heretical.

Matthew 22:1-14
Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come. Again he sent out other slaves saying, 'Tell those who have been invited, "Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast."' But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business, and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them. But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. Then he *said to his slaves, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 'Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.' Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests. But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, and he *said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?' And the man was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For many are called, but few are chosen."

Even Jesus invited people to come to God. He simply did so knowing no one could or would answer the invitation unless the Father had dragged that individual to His Son like a fisherman deliberately, strenuously, vigorously, hauls a net full of fish out of the water. If someone like Finney or Graham thought sinners could answer an invitation one their own anytime they wanted using only their Spirit-less sinful faculties of the flesh then they were mistaken.

I completely agree.

I would judge the premise much more harshly than that.

Those could be the implications, depending on how the invitation is presented. I would like to read proof that is how the invitationalists presented the invitation, and whether they did so implicitly or explicitly.

Revelation 19:9
Then he said to me, "Write, 'Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.'" And he said to me, "These are true words of God."

There is also a certain irony to this because throughout the scripture it is the one needing to be saved, or the one that will soon be saved that does the inviting of the evangelist into his home. That happens when Jesus sends out the disciples and about a half-dozen times in Acts. If I understand the op's purpose it is to eschew volitionalism and assert divine sovereignty in contradiction to the experientialism of Finney and his soteriological progeny. It's a wretched teaching that leads to wretched practice and further wretched doctrine. The whole of is idolatrous in that it elevates the sinner and his faculties above God.

Do I believe someone can go forward at a crusade and be saved? No, I do not.

If they walked away from the crusade saved, it was not from the going forward.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Impossible~the gospel is not the means of our regeneration, it is only the source of information of God's revealing himself to his elect concerning his eternal purposes through Jesus Christ his only begotten Son~only a regenerate child of God can understand God's testimony from his word which he was pleased to give unto us.

Those in Acts two proved that God had regenerated them by their faith and desire to do what they had to do to pleased him~neither Peter's sermon, nor their baptism, had one thing to do with them being born again.

If you desire to discuss this farther we can.

One other thing, let's not forget that the Gospel is not only the source of information but:
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Hebrews 4:12

 

[Sereni-tea]

Do I believe someone can go forward at a crusade and be saved? No, I do not.

If they walked away from the crusade saved, it was not from the going forward.

Of course it's not the act of going forward that saves a person - but it is a response that can be evidence of a spiritual change.

 

[Carbon]

Of course it's not the act of going forward that saves a person - but it is a response that can be evidence of a spiritual change.

Yes, a babe in Christ wouldn't know better.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Yes, a babe in Christ wouldn't know better.

Agreed. But if done properly, a call to come forward does not just abandon the new believer after that but assists them with the next steps of their walk with God, e.g. praying for them and providing them with a Bible and connecting them with a local church or mature believer who will mentor them, etc.

 

[Carbon]

Agreed. But if done properly, a call to come forward does not just abandon the new believer after that but assists them with the next steps of their walk with God, e.g. praying for them and providing them with a Bible and connecting them with a local church or mature believer who will mentor them, etc.

Not sure about the done properly part as in the invitation system. But I agree with new converts follow-up is very important.

 

[Carbon]

Agreed. But if done properly, a call to come forward does not just abandon the new believer after that but assists them with the next steps of their walk with God, e.g. praying for them and providing them with a Bible and connecting them with a local church or mature believer who will mentor them, etc.

Please understand where my reasoning is. I believe it is impossible that the external call by itself, can produce any faith in the heart of the natural man. Anyone who preaches and teaches in a way as it is up to the decision of the person is teaching a different gospel.

 

[Arial]

Please understand where my reasoning is. I believe it is impossible that the external call by itself, can produce any faith in the heart of the natural man. Anyone who preaches and teaches in a way as it is up to the decision of the person is teaching a different gospel.

They are different doctrines not different gospels.

 

[Carbon]

They are different doctrines not different gospels.

Nope. A different gospel as far as I'm concerned. Proclaiming a gospel where a man decides his eternal state, is not a biblical doctrine.

 

[Carbon]

Nope. A different gospel as far as I'm concerned. Proclaiming a gospel where a man decides his eternal state, is not a biblical doctrine.

It also promotes easybelievism.

 

[Arial]

Nope. A different gospel as far as I'm concerned. Proclaiming a gospel where a man decides his eternal state, is not a biblical doctrine.

Does the Bible say that the doctrines of grace in Reformed theology are necessary for salvation?

They have not been taught in the majority of our churches for over a hundred years. Has no one been saved, and is no one saved in those churches with altar calls? Were the majority of Reformed on this forum not saved if they thought for the first half of their Christian walk that they made a choice---when in fact they did make a choice. They just didn't know what lay behind that choice and came before it.

It is out of ignorance that people believe that free will and they truly do not see it as contributing to their salvation. And the reason they don't is because they never follow it through to its natural conclusion. And people are afraid to fear God. Their knowledge of God is limited because of it. Their being able to interpret Bible texts without contradictions comes into play. Every aspect of the work of Christ is limited. The body of Christ is severely wounded because of it. But if God has saved them, they have been saved. And if he hasn't, they aren't.