Church invitation

[El Cid]

I believe that Preachers should allow the Holy Spirit to control the invitation, if God is not in it then they should shut up and sit down. 

 

[Bob H]

Definitely.

I especially hate the "everyone close your eyes, nobody looking around." If someone is coming for salvation, it really throws me that the tone is that it is done in secret so they won't be embarrassed.

Then they stand up and announce them anyhow. LOL

I don't get it. Shouldn't we all be clapping and shouting and rejoicing when someone takes that step?

It's been my experience that when a preacher asks folks to shut their eyes and is asking for raised hands, it's when  the altar call is over and he's asking those who didn't come forward but wants the preacher to pray for them. It has nuttin to do with coming forward. But again, that's just my experience.

 

[ReformedBeliever]

There is nothing in the New Testament that instructs a Church to have altar calls or any variation of them.

"Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. ""Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls""

Different context again, public preaching to unbelievers, not within a Church. Nor what I say this is an invitation, but a response to preaching. Of course this brings up an interesting point as to why many invitations in a Church focus on unbelievers, since the Church is for believers. The only reference to a non-believer in a Church that I can think of is a side reference in the New Testament (in Corinthians) about an unbeliever observing if everyone was speaking in tongues would think that the believers are crazy.

Anyways even if this was an accurate proof text it would mean that an invitation is dependent upon the hearers audible response, with no use of music or repetitive emotional appeals, etc.

 

[Bob H]

"Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. ""Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls""

Different context again, public preaching to unbelievers, not within a Church.

Ain't that ironic. AMR and you are the ones who brought up Finney. His services weren't aimed at the church. They were evangelistic aimed at the unbelievers. Anyways we don't baptize our babies to get them in  and I'm glad our pastor had a few now and then. One of mine was saved during a altar call.

Anyways even if this was an accurate proof text it would mean that an invitation is dependent upon the hearers audible response, with no use of music or repetitive emotional appeals, etc.

Apples and oranges. Not all use these methods

 

[El Cid]

I don't think an altar call should be planned.  It should come naturally as God leads, you can not fabricate God's work with man's devices and manipulations.  Dead churches never give an altar call and some act like salesmen and give one every service putting unneeded pressure on people that probably causes them to get embarrassed and leave church.

 

[Bob H]

They're unnecessary and often can lead to emotionalism and possibly an emulation of the pharisees, that is to be seen of men to show how spiritual you are. There is also a possibility that the preacher may hold to a pragmatic viewpoint as a result of regularly holding an altar call, in the sense that the preacher will judge how good his sermon was based on how many people participate in it, rather than believing that the Holy Spirit will convict and the people will grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, whether an emotional response is seen or not.

What you say is mostly true but that don't necessarily make em' wrong. The altar {mourner's bench} was mainly for believers as far as the church is concerned. Us non-reformed folk aren't perfect as you folk

 

[BALAAM]

They're unnecessary and often can lead to emotionalism and possibly an emulation of the pharisees, that is to be seen of men to show how spiritual you are. There is also a possibility that the preacher may hold to a pragmatic viewpoint as a result of regularly holding an altar call, in the sense that the preacher will judge how good his sermon was based on how many people participate in it, rather than believing that the Holy Spirit will convict and the people will grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, whether an emotional response is seen or not.

What you say is mostly true but that don't necessarily make em' wrong. The altar {mourner's bench} was mainly for believers as far as the church is concerned. Us non-reformed folk aren't perfect as you folk

What exactly is or was a 'mourner's bench'? Where was it used and how did it come into vogue? Are there still some who refer to an altar as a 'mourner's bench' today?

 

[Winston]

They're unnecessary and often can lead to emotionalism and possibly an emulation of the pharisees, that is to be seen of men to show how spiritual you are. There is also a possibility that the preacher may hold to a pragmatic viewpoint as a result of regularly holding an altar call, in the sense that the preacher will judge how good his sermon was based on how many people participate in it, rather than believing that the Holy Spirit will convict and the people will grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, whether an emotional response is seen or not.

What you say is mostly true but that don't necessarily make em' wrong. The altar {mourner's bench} was mainly for believers as far as the church is concerned. Us non-reformed folk aren't perfect as you folk

What exactly is or was a 'mourner's bench'? Where was it used and how did it come into vogue? Are there still some who refer to an altar as a 'mourner's bench' today?

Not sure who started it.  It was used early on by the Methodists. The Early Methodist Episcopal church used it.  The biography of Peter Cartwright talks of its use. And it is in that old BJU movie Sheffy, who was an old Methodist evangelist in the late 1800's.

 

[BALAAM]

Let me interject a thought here. I think we tend to carry over certain things from a certain period of time or from a certain situation and try to use them as common practice in our churches. Let me explain: I have always heard of "brush arbor" meetings and have never seen one or heard of one in my generation from the 1960's until now. My former pastor says that in the 1930's and 40's out in the country that people did not have TV's, computer's, or hardly any form of entertainment apart from work. He said that anyone who could sing or play an instrument would get together with a preacher and they would build a brush arbor, advertise a little, and all kinds of people would come out just to hear some music or preaching for entertainment. All kinds of people would attend and they would give a salvation message and have an invitation and many people would respond to the gospel.

It just seems to me that in our age most people who come to church seem to be there on purpose and the average person can listen to christian radio, tv, books, internet discussions, study groups, etc. and when they come to church it is more to learn something from the Bible than to be preached to or be at an evangelistic service. I think many times we tend to carry over what we did in the 40's to now and under the banner of "old-fashioned" or "unchanging" that the meaning and use of invitations tends to get blurred. Maybe I'm all wet on this but I had this conversation with my wife on the way home last night. She said that if I go forward at an invitation I want it to mean something and not just be a part of the regular church service like singing or offering. What think ye?

 

[Izdaari]

It just seems to me that in our age most people who come to church seem to be there on purpose and the average person can listen to christian radio, tv, books, internet discussions, study groups, etc. and when they come to church it is more to learn something from the Bible than to be preached to or be at an evangelistic service.

Exactly so! I come to church to worship, to fellowship with my congregation, and to learn something from the Bible, preferably something I didn't already know. That's why a scholar who's a good teacher, and who is an ace at Greek and Hebrew, and who knows the cultural and historical contexts of the Scripture he's teaching, is the kind of preacher I value most. I do not need to be evangelized. Save that for the unbelievers.

 

[themagneticfields]

At the church we've been attending, after the sermon the pastor reminds people the "classroom" is open for people who want to talk to someone  and then we sing 2 or 3 songs. During these songs people can go to the classroom, take Communion, give an offering, or go pick up their kids from the nursery.

 

[Bro Blue]

Never heard of the classroom approach. But I see where that would provide a little more in depth, personal conversation.