It is common
for Evangelical Protestant preachers to invite people to “accept Jesus” at the
end of an evangelistic service (the “altar call”). Peter Masters, a Reformed
preacher, listed the following problems with this technique:
1.
The invitational is not in the Bible
2.
The invitational seems to give the seeker ‘executive power’ for
salvation
3.
The invitational never tests or questions a person’s approach
4.
The invitational gives false assurance
5.
The invitational imposes a physical act on a spiritual transaction
6.
The appeal system was originally devised to suit extreme free-will
theology
7.
The invitational takes no account of how easily false decisions may
be taken
8.
The invitational suggests a lack of faith in God’s power
9.
The invitational produces thousands of cynical ‘ex-Christians’
Here are his
comments for nos. 1 and 8:
1. The invitational is not in the Bible
The most significant caution is the fact that
the invitational is a human technique. Nowhere in the Bible does the Lord
command His servants to do anything even remotely like it. The Lord Jesus, our
perfect example, never called for ‘decisions’ or public professions of the kind
seen today, attaching a physical act to a spiritual matter, and nor did the
apostles operate such a system. For that matter, neither did any other known messenger
of the cross throughout the history of the Christian church, until the
nineteenth century. Efforts to trace the invitation system earlier than this
have been wholly unsuccessful. Calling for decisions was completely unknown to
such preaching and revival worthies as the Wycliffites, the Reformers, the
Puritans, the Wesleys, and Whitefield. After it had arrived on the scene,
notables such as C.H. Spurgeon resolutely opposed it.
Bible texts which are used in support of the
appeal technique really have nothing to do with walking on the front of a
public meeting. Verses such as ‘Whosoever therefore shall confess me before
men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven,’ quite
clearly refer to a believer’s witness for Christ in daily life, not to a public
act at the end of an evangelistic sermon. Anyone who looks objectively at the range of texts traditionally used to justify ‘appeals’
must agree that these texts are pressed out of their reasonable, plain-sense
meaning. Many ardent advocates of the system candidly admit that it is not to
be found in the New Testament, and this is a sobering thought. However,
biblical methodology is vital, especially in a matter as critical as spiritual midwifery
. . .
8. The invitational suggests a lack of faith
in God’s power
Why should preachers be so anxious to ‘clinch
the deal’ by bringing people to decisions and public professions before they
leave a service? Why must they insist on knowing ‘right now’ what the spiritual
result of their preaching has been? In the case of some evangelist it is
because they have a ‘commercial’ need for success-statistics in order to
promote their work. But why should better-motivated preachers be so anxious to
see conversions on the spot?
Could it be that there is within us a
residual urge to trust only what can be visibly seen? Do we not have faith to
believe that the Holy Spirit can continue His work in the heart of a sinner after he has left an evangelistic
service? Many preachers say that they must strike while the iron is hot, but
this suggests that conversion is entirely a human
work, not involving the Spirit of God.
Take the case of two believers who had been
taking an unsaved friend to their church, where there was an excellent and
persuasive gospel ministry. After a time they grew concerned that their friend,
though much affected, had made no clear response. There happened to be a church
in their town where the preacher made appeals, and they thought that the
invitation would bring their friend to a ‘crisis’. There lurks in the heart of
many a tendency to think that there is something we can do to expedite the
conversion of a soul. Some simply cannot leave it to the Holy Spirit.
Once the gospel has been faithfully and
persuasively presented, and sinners have been urged to repent and believe, the
Holy Spirit must be trusted to continue His own work in the hearts of hearers,
and we should not trespass into His sovereign territory. We should not do what
the invitational attempts to do, and take over the sinner’s response. Bunyan’s
Evangelist cried, ‘See that shining light?’ But the invitation system picks the
seeker up and carries him bodily through the wicket gate, and so often into a
spurious experience of salvation. (Peter Masters, Physicians of Souls: The Gospel Ministry [London: The Wakemen
Trust, 2002], 232, 238-39)
While
common, the “invitational model” is fraught with problems, including
compromising the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Of course,
one disagrees with Masters’ theology (Calvinism). On this, see, for e.g.:
