Iain Murray on Altar Calls, P2
Apr 30th, 2009 by Nathan White
For the background of this post, please see my previous post introducing this subject.
Iain Murray, in his excellent book ‘Revival and Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism‘, sets forth a few arguments against the altar call that were voiced by men when the practice was just beginning. I thought it would be profitable to repeat a few of his objections here –in spite of the fact that many (most?) of my readers here have rightly seen the immense dangers of altar calls long ago.
(Continued from here)
3rd argument: “…It was claimed by those supporting the altar call that ‘a sinner who is not humble enough to take the step [come forward] is not humble enough to be saved’. On the contrary, the Old School [those who opposed the altar call] argued that it was entirely unsafe to suppose that it was spiritual influence which brought people forward. Those most likely to make an immediate public response were ‘the forward, the sanguine, the rash, the self-confident’. No spiritual power was necessary to secure a physical response.” (Emphasis his)
4th argument: “There was agreement on all sides that many who went forward in response to the appeal subsequently showed that they remained unconverted. But, it was said, ‘If only some souls are saved by the use of the new measures [newly instituted altar calls], we ought thankfully to own their power’…
…[The use of the altar call is justified] ‘because a few are truly converted, and make stable, useful Christians…the rest when they find out the shallowness of their experience, are simply where they were before.’
…This reply…rests on a number of fallacies. The lapsed who were once held up before public view as converts are not where they were before; they are likely to be more careless and more indifferent. Furthermore, in their lapse the reputation of the gospel has been brought down in the eyes of the world.” (Emphasis mine)
“…I would say that if good is done by these irregular means [use of the altar call], it is done at frightful expense. It is like slaying hundreds to save one.” (Emphasis mine)
I’ve heard it said that if we don’t do an altar call, then how will we have someone’s “public profession of faith”. The simple reply is “that’s one of the things that happens with baptism”. Good post Nathan – thanks!
Chris, along the same lines, I have a pastor friend who, upon preaching a sermon and having someone come up to him afterwards asking him ‘why didn’t you give an invitation?’, responded by saying: “What are you talking about? The whole sermon was an invitation.”
Right on. Our preaching and the message should be the emphasis and focus of the service, not some special period of exhortation/pleading afterwards. The entire message should be a presentation of the gospel and an invitation to submit to Christ.
I heard it said that today we (at least baptists) scorn the idea of baptizing an infant and saying, “you’re in the covenant”, and yet we turn around and say, “raise your hand, come forward and pray this prayer…okay, now you’re in the covenant”. I’m thankful for the churches that don’t follow this main-centered invitational system that helps mass produce gospel hardened hypocrites.