The Biblical Definition Of Repentance

        There is confusion amongst professing Christians as to the definition of repentance, namely whether it consists of a change in mind or a change in ways. Scripture does provide a definitive answer to this question, but it does not appeal to many in our culture and to those who preach a watered-down version of the gospel. Nowadays, it is commonly assumed that people are good as they are. People are therefore offended when they are told that they need to change. The reception of the gospel is to be followed by a change of heart from sinful ways to godly living.  

        According to Scripture, the act of repentance is more than a change of mind. It involves turning from sinful ways. It involves entrusting oneself to God who forgives our sins. Repentance is not a work, but a change in heart. It is a change in purpose and perspective. Repentance is crying out to God, admitting the futility of remaining in sin. This theme was taught especially in the Book of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 14:6; 18:20-31). The underlying theme of the gospel is repent or perish. Repentance can be accompanied with godly sorrow and grief, as was the case of the Apostle Peter who denied knowing Jesus Christ (Luke 22:62-64). Consider also how the men of Nineveh responded to the preaching of Jonah:

         "Then the people of Nineveh believed in God; and they called a fast and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least of them. When the word reached the king of Nineveh, he arose from his throne, laid aside his robe from him, covered himself with sackcloth and sat on the ashes He issued a proclamation and it said, “In Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let man, beast, herd, or flock taste a thing. Do not let them eat or drink water. But both man and beast must be covered with sackcloth; and let men call on God earnestly that each may turn from his wicked way and from the violence which is in his hands. Who knows, God may turn and relent and withdraw His burning anger so that we will not perish.” When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it." (Jonah 3:5-10, emphasis added)

         The response of the people who heard his message was not rejection, but covering themselves with sackcloth and ashes. This was an expression of sorrow for their sins of idolatry, sexual perversion, and godlessness. The Ninevites changed their ways and obtained for themselves mercy from God. Note how Jesus Christ used this event in calling the Pharisees to repentance:

         "The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here." (Matthew 12:41)

          It is clear that Christ Himself viewed repentance as turning from sinful ways. If we define that term to mean a change of mind, then we are at best giving an incomplete definition. Christians have a desire to serve God because their hearts have been changed by the Holy Spirit. They have been given a new nature. The lives of the apostles are evidence of this truth.

          If we truly wish to inherit eternal life, then we must turn to God and seek the forgiveness that He provides. True repentance will inevitably result in a changed lifestyle. An aspect of repentance is the conviction that sin should no longer persist in our lives. We must recognize that we are spiritually bankrupt sinners who are in need of His redemption. The word order of faith and repentance in the New Testament indicates that both are inseparable (Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21). If there is no repentance from sin, then there can be no forgiveness by God. If repentance is removed or redefined from its original meaning, then the gospel falls apart.

Per Fidem Solam: Romans 3:24 In The Würzburg Glosses, 8th Century

.... Very interesting: Per Fidem Solam: Romans 3:24 in the Würzburg Glosses, from an Irish theologian in the 8th Century:

"23 For all have sinned and do need the glory of God. 24 Being justified freely by his grace [that is, by faith alone, i.e. the faith of belief in Jesus Christ], through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [that is, it is He that has redeemed and it is He also that is the ransom, i.e. by the blood] 25 Whom God had proposed to be a propitiation [that is, it has been set forth in the mysteries of the Godhead, to make atonement for those who believe his liberation would be in the blood], through faith in his blood, [that is, through the faith of every one who believes in his salvation through His blood] to the showing of his justice, for the remission of former sins."

https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2013/03/per-fidem-solam-romans-324-in-wurzburg.html

Abortion Is Wrong Even If The Fetus Is Not A Person

"Marquis thinks abortion is wrong even if the fetus is not a person.

Once again, to see the force of this strategy, imagine two people on a sidewalk debating the issue. If someone told you that the two debaters had come to agree that the fetus is not a person, you’d probably form the belief that the “pro-choice” side had won; likely, you’d conclude that the “pro-lifer” had been convinced.

But Marquis’ argument doesn’t rely on the fetus being a person.

Here it is:

(1) What makes killing someone wrong, in most respects, is it deprives them of a future of value.

(2) When a fetus is killed, it suffers the same kind of loss.

Thus,

(3) Abortion is immoral just as killing an adult or a child is immoral.

As Marquis puts it:

When I am killed…I am deprived of all the value of my future. Inflicting this loss on me is ultimately what makes killing me wrong. This being the case, it would seem that what makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his or her future. …

The future of a standard fetus includes a set of experiences, projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings and are identical with the futures of young children. Since the reason that is sufficient to explain why it is wrong to kill human beings after the time of birth is a reason that also applies to fetuses, it follows that abortion is prima facie seriously morally wrong.

Notice that Marquis’ argument doesn’t rely on the fetus being a person. Marquis is in essence shoving the question of personhood aside and looking strictly at what it is that makes killing someone wrong.

If it turned out that what makes killing someone wrong crucially relies on personhood, then Marquis wouldn’t have an argument against abortion (using the assumptions he’s relied on). But the wrong-making feature of killing that he’s identified is something adults, children, and fetuses share when each of them are killed. So if the feature that makes killing someone from the first two groups wrong is that it deprives them of a future of value, then it also furnishes us with an argument against abortion, since the fetus, like the child and the adult, has a future of value.

(Interestingly, Marquis’ argument does not provide grounds for seeing euthanasia as wrong, given that in many cases the candidate for euthanasia does not have a future of value.)

Notice that Marquis’ argument is not vulnerable to the familiar “pro-choice” lament that anti-abortionists are “giving full rights to a potential person” or anything like that. The question of personhood is irrelevant.

Marquis’ argument relies on a theory about what makes killing someone wrong, and then noticing that the same effects occur when a fetus is killed — the fetus, like the adult, is wrongly stripped of a future of value. It’s not like, when an adult is killed, someone can plausibly respond “Yes, but, they only had this ‘future of value’ potentially — so there’s no wrongdoing here.” No one would accept this reasoning. That’s because, as Marquis notes, we see this future of value as something an adult possesses in the present. That’s precisely why we’re so scandalized when someone is killed — they are robbed of something — the most precious thing — they possess: their future of value.

That’s what makes abortion seriously immoral."

https://arcdigital.media/abortion-is-wrong-even-if-the-fetus-is-not-a-person-bd7552841366

Presenting A Different Jesus

"The Jesus being presented in many churches today is different because He is not the One we find in the Bible. The popular Jesus being presented is the one who fills churches to the rafters with fans and not disciples. People are following a genie in a bottle that will grant them all of their hopes and dreams. He is a Hallmark card version of Jesus who is willing to overlook sin and just be a good friend to pal around with. He never makes us feel bad or consider ourselves less than number one.

Many of our modern churches focus on self-improvement instead of dying to self. This is works based nonsense and basically, the same thing practiced among many pseudo-Christian cults including Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism. The logic is if you work hard enough and be good enough, you can earn eternal life.

Instead of lovingly warning people about fleeing the wrath to come, we decide we know a better approach. We attempt to woo people into the Christian life by presenting its features and benefits much like a good salesman. This isn't the biblical model of how to present the gospel and it is certainly not the way to make disciples.

The local church's main purpose isn't to help people improve their financial planning skills, have a better marriage, or to get them connected into activities galore for the whole family. What people desperately need is to hear the gospel to come to the end of themselves and be truly born again. We don't want to present a different Jesus who is a cosmic genie who caters to our felt needs and desires.

Trouble begins when seeker-sensitive hirelings who are not shepherds water down the gospel. They present a different Jesus and this is a deception plaguing many churches today. These preachers may want to improve their image, popularity, or ministry numbers, so they make coming to Jesus about life enhancement, not dying to oneself.

I feel the uneasy tension when [speaking] to people about heaven, hell, eternity, sin, and repentance. The Lord never promised it would be easy to be His disciple but he promised to be with us always and give us the words to say when we testify about Him. It's my deep desire and prayer for each of us to renew our commitment to speak the truth, with love as the motive and do it with boldness as the Holy Spirit directs us. While many are compromising and presenting a different Jesus, I pray the faithful remnant will continue to make Him known."

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/presenting-a-different-jesus-howard-green.html

Does Hebrews 6:4-6 Teach That Apostates Cannot Be Forgiven?

        The text of Hebrews 6:4-6 has been a source of controversy amongst Christians as to its meaning. It certainly is thought-provoking in a solemn sense. In fact, it has put believers into a state of needless panic over it seemingly teaching that those who stumble into sin are beyond any hope of obtaining forgiveness from God. That statement would be true only in the case of one who dies in a state of unrepentance and persistent rebellion. Scripture elsewhere exhorts us to spiritually assist backsliders in coming to repentance (Galatians 6:1). Exposure to the truth of the gospel does not result in regeneration except if it reaches the heart.

        What may serve as an antidote to this difficult passage of Scripture is the recognition that the audience to which this epistle was originally written was of a Jewish background. It was primarily addressing Jewish Christians who were thinking of reverting to Judaism in the face of upcoming persecution. In summary, the author of Hebrews goes on to demonstrate Christ as being superior to the Old Covenant. He urges them to fervently hold fast to the gospel. They were in need of spiritual edification (Hebrews 6:1-3).

        This epistle goes in depth concerning various types, shadows, and how they are fulfilled in the New Testament. It describes Christ as being greater than Moses and the angels. It affirms Him to be our Sabbath and High Priest. The author of Hebrews affirms Christ to be greater than the temple and its sacrifices. He is the fulfillment of the Law, which cannot save us. Its customs are useless to us. Jesus established the New Covenant. The Jewish Christians were encouraged to continually remain faithful to the Lord and endure persecution for His sake (Hebrews 10:23-39).

        So, the point of this passage is not to say that God will refuse to forgive the sins of those who humbly turn to Him in repentance. Rather, those who persistently seek the Law as a means of justification are only destining themselves for eternal condemnation. These people are inexcusable because they already know and understand the truth of the gospel. Sacrificial alters have no power to redeem us. The priesthood cannot atone for our iniquity. Jesus Christ has already made full atonement for our sin (Hebrews 10:10-14). We are place our trust in His work for salvation. Those who attempt to reinstate Old Covenant practices are putting Christ to an open shame. They are rejecting the sufficiency of His work.

The Myth That Roman Emperor Constantine Changed The Sabbath

           Seventh-Day Adventists claim that the Roman Catholic Church changed the Jewish Sabbath Day from Saturday to Sunday during the reign of Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. They argue that we must avoid gathering on that day due to participation allegedly being the mark of the Beast. Typical attempts to substantiate their claims involve the citation of various nineteenth century authors, who simply made guesses regarding the methodology of early Christian worship services. However, any notion of Rome changing the Sabbath Day to Sunday is false. Mandatory Sabbath observance was only meant for Israel. The tradition of gathering on Sundays for worship has been practiced since the first century in correspondence with the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

          The text of Acts 20:7-12 very clearly describes Christians as having fellowship on Sunday. People came together and broke bread. The New Testament records the existence of this tradition elsewhere in passages such as John 20:19-20, 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, and Revelation 1:10. The point is that Christians have always gathered on the first day of the week. Constantine therefore could not have made such a change to the Sabbath, even if he wanted to. The tradition of gathering on Sunday can be found in the earliest existing sources outside of the Bible:

          "But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations." (Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Chapter XIV)

          This text speaks of brethren offering pure spiritual sacrifices to God. They were to be done in a state in which people were not at variance with each other. Personal conflicts or grievances were to be resolved, if they existed. Believers set aside time weekly to have fellowship with each other. The "Lord's Day" is a reference to Sunday.  

          "[T]he Gentiles, who have believed on Him, and have repented of the sins which they have committed, they shall receive the inheritance along with the patriarchs and the prophets, and the just men who have descended from Jacob, even although they neither keep the Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor observe the feasts." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter XXVI)

          The Gentiles are said to be members of God's kingdom, even though they never previously observed Jewish customs or feast days. Converts from that background were described in a continuous sense as not observing the Sabbath. That is not the basis of receiving the inheritance which God promised to our forefathers.

            "[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death." (Ignatius of Antioch​​​​​​​, Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110])

            This text says without qualification that Sabbath observance is not a part of the Christian life and distinguishes that day from the "Lord's Day."

            It is simply invalid to assert that the Roman Emperor Constantine altered this Jewish day of observance from Saturday to Sunday. No one on earth has the power to change the Sabbath because it was originally instituted by God for the Jewish people.

Does Philippians 2:12 Refute Justification By Faith Alone?

          "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Philippians 2:12)

          In the Old and New Testaments, the word translated as "salvation" often has the meaning of physical deliverance. It is used in that sense in Philippians 1:19. In Philippians 1:28, it refers to the deliverance of our bodies from the destruction of the wicked. Even when used in a theological sense, the term salvation can be a reference to justification, sanctification, or glorification. 

          The salvation spoken of in Philippians 2 is not of redeeming a lost soul, but liberation from disputes and strife. "Working out" refers to the resolving of such problems. Paul urged his readers to put on the mind of Christ. Holy living is the logical outworking of our justification before God. He is the source of our spiritual growth in Christ (Philippians 2:13).

         The phrase "fear and trembling" indicates the proper mindset that we are to have toward God (Psalm 2:11). It does not denote uncertainty as to our standing before Him in Christ. Rather, the expression indicates an attitude of awe and reverence toward one's own Creator. It is with this frame of mind that one lives a life of honorable service to God.

The Twin Pillars of Christian Life: Pursuing Peace and Holiness

Our apostle having now finished his exhortation unto patient perseverance in the profession of the gospel under all sufferings and afflictions, he now proceeds to a prescription of practical duties incumbent upon Christians at all times in the daily course of their conversation, two of which are contained in this verse, namely to follow peace and holiness; the former contains our duty to man, the latter, our duty to God.

Here observe, that both duties are enjoined in one and the same precept, and also with one and the same penalty: Without which, that is, without following of both which without pursuing and endeavouring after both, no man shall see the Lord.

Indeed, if a person follows holiness, though he cannot obtain peace, he may see God provided he pursues peace, and the fault is none of his that he doth not find it; but if he does not pursue peace, though he pretends never so much to holiness, he cannot be happy, for a Christian must be of a peaceable as well as of a pious, conversation; peace and holiness, peacableness and purity, are here joined together, and he neither can be happy in this or the next world, that puts them asunder.

Observe farther, The manner how peace and holiness must be followed, namely, with intense endeavours: The original word imports a vehement pursuit, a metaphor taken from huntsmen, who follow the chase, and pursue their game though it flies before them; if peace be had, though it be upon hard terms, we must endeavour to secure it, for it can never be bought too dear, if it be not purchased by sin and baseness.

A frame and disposition of seeking peace with all, is eminently suited unto the doctrine and grace of the gospel. A forward spirit, ready for strife and contention, easily provoked, and retaining long a sense of injuries, is directly contrary to the spirit and temper of the gospel.

Observe likewise, How that holiness towards God must be accompanied with peaceableness towards man. It is evangelical holiness which is here required; which must be an inward holiness, an universal holiness, a sincere and real holiness, an humble and self-denying holiness, a growing and progressive holiness, and such a holiness towards God as is always accompanied with righteousness towards men.

Observe lastly, The absolute necessity of holiness in order to eternal blessedness, Without it no man shall see the Lord. The future sight of God in glory depends peremptorily on our present holiness, not as the meritorious cause of it, but as a necessary qualification and preparation for it, and as it is the indispensable condition of our obtaining of it. The soul is by holiness made meet and fit for the enjoyment of God in happiness, Colossians 1:12.

Burkitt, William. "Commentary on Hebrews 12:14". Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/wbc/hebrews-12.html. 1700-1703.

Biblical Evidence Against The Apostle Peter Being The First Pope

• Defining The Issues: 

          -The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ made the Apostle Peter its first pope and that He had built His church upon him. It is also asserted that Jesus gave Peter a unique position of authority over His church, which was to get passed on through apostolic succession to present-day popes. This is the underlying basis for the Roman Catholic Church proclaiming itself to be the infallible preserver of divine truth. These claims to authority made by Rome have spewed a great deal of controversy amongst the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches.

• General Absence Of The Papal Office Throughout The New Testament: 

          -The New Testament contains various passages discussing the types of offices and qualifications necessary for obtaining such positions in the church (Ephesians 4:11-15; 1 Corinthians 12:28; 2 Corinthians 12:12; 1 Timothy 3:1-13; 1 Timothy 5:1-19; Titus 1:5-9). Yet, the concept of a pope is absent in these contexts. Paul does not distinguish Peter from the other apostles in the lists where that specific role is mentioned. Scripture describes individual congregations as being ruled by pluralities of elders (Acts 14:23; 20:28; 1 Timothy 5:17). Moreover, the New Testament says nothing regarding the establishment or existence of a one-head bishop hierarchical church structure. There is no mention of a single human leader rightly claiming to have been bestowed a gift of infallible teaching authority.

• General Absence Of Papal Titles Throughout The New Testament:

          -Peter was never addressed by titles of exultation such as are used to honor popes of later times. In other words, he was never called "Pope," "Chief Shepard," "Head of the Church," "Holy Father," "Sovereign Pontiff," or any other religious titles used to honor popes today. Instead, he was simply called an "apostle and servant" (1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1) and "fellow presbyter" (1 Peter 5:1). Such titles logically place Peter on the same level of authority as any other elder in the church. The Apostle John also referred to himself as an "elder" (2 John 1; 3 John 1), thereby implying that he had the same authority as Peter. 

           *Some may argue that the Apostle Peter avoided these titles because he was humble and modest. But if that is the case, then why do modern popes refuse to follow Peter's example? The truth of the matter is that the Lord Jesus Christ forbade the practice (Matthew 23:8-12).
          -Jesus is the "Chief Shepherd" of the flock (John 10:10; 14-16), not the pope. Christ is the "head of the church" (1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 1:22-23; 4:15; 5:23-25), not the pope.

            *Roman Catholics believe that the pope is the "visible" head of the church and that Christ is the "invisible" head. However, Scripture reserves no such position for any man. The kingdom of God is spiritual and so does not require a single earthly leader to guide it.

• The Apostle Peter Did Not Behave As If He Were A Pope:

          -The Apostle Peter was not a wealthy man as are modern-day popes (Acts 3:6-7). In other words, he did not have a throne, wear a crown, or showcase any other kinds of riches, as successive popes have enjoyed for centuries. Peter did not allow men to bow before him religiously (Acts 10:25-26), but modern popes have accepted and encouraged this kind of behavior. We are not to bow before people to honor their religious office or affiliation (Revelation 22:8-9).

• The Absence Of Papal Office In Contexts Relating To Church Unity:

          -Paul never mentioned the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church as being the means of preserving ecclesiastical unity in passages relating to that very topic (Ephesians 4:4-7; Philippians 4:2-3). Jesus Christ does not refer to a Papacy in His prayer to God for unity amongst brethren (John 17). That should make one doubt whether the papal office existed in the first century, since it claims to have been established by Christ for the very purpose of maintaining unity amongst believers.

• The Apostle Peter Viewed Himself As Having No Supremacy Over The Church:

          -"Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble." (1 Peter 5:1-5)

           *Peter did not recognize himself as having an exalted position over other elders in the church, but instead spoke as if he had the same authority as they did. He certainly was not aware of any unique authority bestowed upon him by Christ if he did, in fact, have it. This casts doubt on any idea that Peter was the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

• Peter Was Sent By Others To Travel And Preach The Gospel:

          -"Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent Peter and John to them." (Acts 8:14)

            *It the Apostle Peter was the first pope, then why would he take orders from men who were allegedly lower in the chain of command than himself?

• The Apostle Paul Worked Harder Than Peter: 

          -"But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me." (1 Corinthians 15:10).

           *If the Apostle Peter was the first pope, then why did he not write more Scripture?

• The Apostle Peter Was Only Known As The Apostle To The Jews:

          -If Peter was appointed by Christ to govern the entire Christian church worldwide, then why is it that Paul was the one commissioned to evangelize the Gentiles (Galatians 2:8)? In that same context, the Apostle Peter is only referred to as "one of four pillars," with James being listed as first in order (Galatians 2:9).

• The Apostle Paul Rebuked Peter As Though He Were His Equal:

          -The text clearly shows that Peter and Paul had equal authority because the former boldly confronted the latter for his sin. Peter is not in an exulted position. Any person courageous enough to publicly repudiate the claims of a Roman bishop in later centuries would most probably get himself or herself executed, if done in the manner as Paul did in the text of Galatians 2:11-14.

• Paul Never Mentioned Or Greeted "Pope Peter" In His Epistle To The Romans:

          -If the Apostle Peter was the first pope, then why is it that Paul wrote such a theologically rich epistle to the Romans? How come he never bothered to mention such a prominent figure in his greetings (Romans 16)? Where was "Pope Peter" when everybody else had deserted Paul (2 Timothy 1:15; 4:16)?

• The Apostle Peter Himself Seemed To Be Unaware Of Apostolic Succession:

          -"I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder." (2 Peter 1:13)
          -"And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure you will be able to call these things to mind." (2 Peter 1:15)
          -"This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles." (2 Peter 3:1-2)
           *How come Peter failed to mention the papal office in the two epistles that he authored or discuss his potential successors?

• The Apostle Peter Did Not Exclusively Exercise Authority In Church Government:

          -The Apostle Peter was not in charge of the replacement apostle after Judas was dead (Acts 1:23-26). In other words, he did not occupy his supreme authority on this issue of church government like popes would. Instead, all of the apostles nominated two candidates (not Peter alone) and prayed to Christ for an answer (not looking to Peter). Afterwards, they all cast lots to see who the new apostle would be (Peter did not cast any). This passage certainly weakens the Roman Catholic claim that the pope has power over church government.

          -"In Acts 11 Peter is called to answer for his actions in going to Cornelius' house. Does he give evidence of Papal prerogatives here? Does he answer as Innocent III, or Alexander VI? Hardly. There is no mention of his position as Pope. Instead, rather than pleading his position as Vicar of Christ, Peter relates the supernatural vision and direction that had been given to him to proclaim the gospel message to the Gentiles. This no more makes Peter a Pope than Paul's guiding vision in Acts 16." (James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy, p. 112)

Altar Calls: An Unbiblical Tradition

        The practice of altar calls, where individuals are invited to come forward at the end of a church service to make a public commitment to Christ, has been a topic of much debate. One of the most significant critiques of altar calls is their historical absence from early Christian practices. The altar call did not become a common practice until the 19th century, primarily through the influence of Charles Finney. Critics argue that Finney's introduction of the altar call was based on questionable theology and a man-centered, manipulative methodology. Historically, the early church did not rely on such methods; rather, they focused on teaching, baptism, and the sacraments as means of fostering faith. The historical novelty of the altar call suggests it is more a product of modern evangelistic techniques than an apostolic tradition. This raises important questions about the theological integrity of altar calls and emphasizes the importance of adhering to traditional practices that have stood the test of time.

        Another strong argument against altar calls is the potential confusion they create between the physical act of "coming forward" and the spiritual act of "coming to Christ." While the two can happen simultaneously, there is a risk that individuals might equate the physical act with the spiritual commitment. This confusion can lead to misunderstandings about what it truly means to come to Christ, potentially undermining the depth and authenticity of one's faith journey. For example, a person might mistakenly believe that the act of walking to the front of the church equates to a genuine conversion experience. This conflation can dilute the profound and personal nature of a true spiritual awakening, leading to a superficial understanding of faith and salvation.

        Another objection to altar calls is the pressure they place on individuals to make a public decision for Christ. This environment, often characterized by emotional music, dimmed lights, and passionate appeals, can lead to decisions driven more by the heat of the moment rather than genuine, heartfelt commitments. There is a significant risk that individuals might respond to emotional pressure instead of true spiritual conviction. Consequently, such decisions may not be deeply rooted in personal faith, resulting in a lack of lasting commitment and spiritual growth. This highlights the importance of allowing individuals to make thoughtful, considered decisions about their faith journey. People ought to be free from external influences that might sway their true intentions.

        The final compelling argument focuses on the significance of adhering to biblically prescribed worship practices, such as preaching, prayer, fellowship, and singing. Introducing new practices like altar calls may shift the focus away from these core elements of corporate worship. God's guidelines for worship should remain the primary focus to ensure that worship practices are aligned with biblical teachings and emphasize what is truly important in the faith. By adhering strictly to these prescribed elements, congregations can maintain a clear and undistracted focus on the key aspects of worship that nurture and deepen faith. This argument highlights the potential risk of diluting worship with practices that, while well-intentioned, may not have the same theological grounding or scriptural endorsement.

        In today's cautious and relational age, many people come to faith over an extended period and often with the guidance of a trusted friend or mentor. The altar call, with its immediate and public nature, may not align with the gradual and relational process through which many individuals come to faith. This method can be seen as too abrupt and impersonal, potentially alienating those who would benefit more from a thoughtful and supportive journey to faith. Modern evangelism often recognizes the importance of personal connections and long-term discipleship. Thus, relying on altar calls might miss the opportunity to engage individuals more deeply and relationally, fostering genuine, long-lasting faith commitments.