Mark

P.s. Is there still an altar today anyways?

Invitations (at least, in the sense of changing location in a meeting room as an application-?- of a sermon text) are non-biblical at best, again introducing the question of the Regulative Principle.

Good discussion, I’m gonna chew on this tonight!

That’s true. The excesses and injury done through altar calls or decisional regeneration does not justify swinging the pendulum to the point where all invitation are inherently unbiblical. I think we are at a point in our generation where we have seen it done wrong and reaping the effects that we are prone to an overreaction. I hope that is not the case.

You said,

We’re not against the whole system, just its abuse.

I say,

“Good word, robot.”

I think you have to take into account what Lloyd-Jones preached before he had people do that.

Lloyd-Jones was no joke as an evangelist. I think Ian Murray talked about how there would be people who would be so mad at what Lloyd-Jones preached in relation to sin, but would be back to hear him.

Why not just let the text of Scripture dictate the “invitiation.” Let’s face it, not every text does this.

Also, why not be creative with the invitation if you give one? For example, I’ve done this: if preaching to a church that is looking for a pastor, if my message is about that, or, for example, the characteristics of a proper, godly NT local church, have the search committee stand and call for people to covenant publlcily to pray with the members individually after the service and periodically thorughout the search. The onus lies on them to follow through, but it is a concrete and proper invitation for such a message, as opposed to “If you don’t know Jesus come to the front.”

We’re not against the whole system, just its abuse.

I admit. I do find that intriguing. I guess my thoughts would be, then, if such raising of the hands would be a reliable sign of a true regenerating work of God. In other words, could some be raising their hands (1) because someone next to them is, (2) because they don’t want to be the odd man left out, (3) that they have enough Bible knowledge to know that is the right thing to “believe, ” (4) genuinely under conviction and think that agreement or assent to such beliefs effects salvation (apart from trust/faith and repentance)?

Edwards would say that such outward gestures are “negative signs” which cannot distinguish between a true work of the Spirit or an outward manifestation of man. I would tend to agree with Edwards on that.

I believe in Mark Dever’s last interview of Lloyd-Jones’s daughter, I think [if I remember correctly] that she said early on in his service as a pastor he would have people raise their hands if they believed that Jesus died for their sins [or something like that].

Now, that is not exactly an invitation, but that is the kind of thing I am talking about that I do not believe necessarily conflicts with the weightiness of sin/Doctrines of Grace.

BCR

Yeah, I don’t think it all goes back to Finney, although I do believe he popularized it (along with others such as Billy Sunday and Billy Graham). I am going to blog about this later, but I think it all begins with whether or not we believe that sin is a big problem that we cannot fix (i.e. total depravity). If we can make light of sin, then conversion subsequently can be just as superficial. But if we treat our wounds so lightly, what are we saying about that old rugged cross?

I guess that’s where I am getting at. To God, salvation and conversion is a big deal, so much so that the Father, Son, and Spirit accomplish it from beginning to end. And when salvation and the souls of men and women are being directed otherwise, then I think the concerns are warranted.