"Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near." (Isaiah 55:6 KJV)
There are other reasons given in opposition to the invitation/altar call, mostly doctrinal. In this post, I would like to address one of these...
No Precedent: Some opposers say there is no precedent in Scripture for giving an altar call. However, that is not what I see at all. In the book of Acts, the call of Peter on Pentecost was "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ and thou shalt receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." The Bible tells us that that very same day there were added 3000 souls to the Church. Now, it doesn't outrightly say Peter gave an invitation, but I don't know what else you'd call it. To enter the Church, they had to respond to Peter's Gospel presentation, which included them being baptized. Thus, 3000 souls responded to Peter's message that very day by confessing Christ and being baptized. If it were not an on the spot invitation, i.e. if they simply prayed with them and bid them "good luck," how did they possibly know 3000 souls were add to the Church THAT DAY?
If one places oneself there when Peter was preaching, it is evident that Peter went immediately to a water source and stood there just like John the Baptist waiting for folks to respond to his message. This act of Peter standing in the water is no different than standing either in the water today, or at the altar, or wherever one happens to be.
Later we read that Phillip was sent by God to a Eunuch who was reading Isaiah 53 in his chariot. Phillip began at the same scripture and preached Christ unto him. Phillip's message also included baptism. Thus, the Eunuch asked Phillip, "What hindereth me to be baptized?" Phillip answered, "If you believe with all of your heart, you may." The Eunuch confessed, "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God." And so he was baptized. The apostles clearly practiced believer's baptism. It's humorous that most of the naysayers on this account practice infant baptism which has NO Biblical precedent whatsoever.
The point is that all one has to do is to look through the book of Acts, and one will clearly see an immediate response to the Gospel presentation. That response is almost always to a demand that if one will be saved, he must repent and believe the gospel, and demonstrate this faith through being baptized. The apostles never baptized unbelievers. Since the people were baptized pretty much immediately, there had to have been an immediate response given to the Gospel message.
To do otherwise would be the equivalent of telling someone they have a terminal illness that they cannot do anything about. However, you have the cure for them. Just when they want to take the cure and be healed, you walk off and say "Eh, well, they'll figure it out..." No! We have the cure, and the cure is the cross of Calvary! The cure is the finished work of Christ! We should not tell people there is a cure, and then not give them an opportunity to avail themselves of it.
This is a good series, Robert, and a good post. The only comment I would make is to point out that in the examples you gave of Peter and Philip in Acts, in both cases the people responded spontaneously to the preacher's message with a question. Being 'cut to the heart' by Peter's message, the people asked him "What shall we do?" Likewise, the eunuch asked Philip, "What's to prevent me from being baptized?" In neither case did the preacher issue an invitation in the way we think of today. Instead, in each case the hearers were moved by the message and spontaneously responded. That's the hallmark of the Holy Spirit's work, when people are moved by our preaching to ask "What do I need to do in response to this?" Would to God that our preaching today would move people in this same way such that after the gospel is presented, the people can't wait to be baptized!
ReplyDelete