Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 12:17 AM

I said in my recent email article, "A Brief Look At Another Internet Article Which Opposes the Use of Public Invitations," that Fred G. Zaspel's article on "The Altar Call" is a "speckled bird." And indeed it is.

I did not, in that article, deal much with the content of Fred's criticisms of the public invitation; I primarily took notice of his own testimony, posted on the Internet, of how he was himself was converted at the age of six during an "altar call" or public invitation.

Despite being saved during an "altar call" conducted by his own father, now -- years after adopting a "mega-sized" Calvinism -- he has become opposed to a public invitation and says "only harm" can come from it. Somehow, he apparently escaped the alleged "harm" at the time of his own conversion in 1964.

Since writing that article the other day, I have more carefully read Fred's article and marked some of "speckled" material by which it is distinguished. I do not think I have ever read such a mass of what I sometimes call "palabber" since the last article I read by Peter Ruckman! Fred's dissertation is laced with all sorts of misrepresentations, distorted concerts, historical fiction, theological error, and of course a misappropriation of quotations from C. H. Spurgeon. I wish to call attention to a few of these instances.

1. Fred has offered "running" as an alternative to "walking an aisle" for salvation.

Numerous times in his article, Fred says one is to "run" to Christ for salvation. He has a great deal to say against "walking," but several times he encourages "running." I don't think I have ever read anyone in Scripture who equates believing in Christ as "running."

There is at least one instance in Scripture where a lost sinner came "running" and knelt before the Lord (Mark 10:17). This was the rich young ruler. Although he appeared to be zealously affected, with a sincere interest in being saved, and demonstrated a reverence or some degree of the fear of the Lord, and was concerned about having eternal life, he did not become a Christian -- even though he was dealt with directly and personally by the Lord Himself.

One might think that the young man's running and his reverent kneeling indicated he was "ready" for conversion and would be willing to become a believer. His question put to the Lord indicated that his mind was in an obvious state of "seriousness." He seemed to have the marks or outward evidences which even Brother Zaspel, perhaps, might want in a prospective convert. But he proved to be an unbeliever still, even after hearing the word of the Lord. For all practical purposes, he might as well have "walked an aisle," for he went away and was still lost.

So -- even though one "runs" to the Lord, demonstrates reverence, and is of a serious mind -- this evidently is of as little consequence in salvation -- no more than Brother Zaspel attaches to "walking." Why Brother Zaspel thinks there is more value to "running" than in "walking" is a mystery.

Indeed, "walking" appears to be of more significance than "running," if we are to judge from Scripture. The Lord admonished His hearers to "walk in the light" and they would not stumble, and said that He is the Light of the world.

"I am the light of the world; he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life" (John 8:12).

Did not Brother Zaspel start his own walk in the Light when he was converted during an "alter call" at the age of six? If he could start his own walk in the Light during an invitation, why is he so set against someone else's doing the same today?

I wish to say here, that to my knowledge -- and I have been a Christian since 1953 -- I have yet to meet or hear the preacher who taught that walking down an aisle during an invitation is synonymous with being saved. And I have heard some notable evangelists -- Billy Graham, John R. Rice, J. Harold Smith, Eddie Martin (many times), Howard Butt, Michael Gott, Lester Roloff, Hyman Appelman and others. They all gave invitations, but they always stressed confessing Christ as Savior. Never once did I hear one indicate that coming forward was the same as being saved. I think Billy Graham will only refer those coming forward as "decisions," not as "salvations" or "conversions." I personally know that Eddie Martin had an after-meeting in which the way of salvation was clearly explained, and Scriptures were read, and each person was given a packet of materials along with a marked copy of the Gospel of John. No one was told that by coming forward they were therefore "saved." It was emphasized that salvation was thru faith in Christ.

When Brother Zaspel imputes or implies that those who use invitations are saying that by coming forward one is actually saved, it is simply not true in the case of all of the evangelists I have heard. That is also true of many well-known pastors I have heard, such as Robert G. Lee of Memphis, whom I heard often. It was also true of W. A. Criswell, Lee Roberson, Slater Murphy of Memphis, and others. It is simply not true that such pastors equated salvation with coming forward in an invitation.

2. Brother Zaspel attempts to discredit the invitation because, he says, it was not used by Jesus, the apostles, and the early church.

He does admit that "this may not prove that the altar call is wrong," but he thinks "it obviously cannot be wrong to decide against the more modern method."

This type of argument reminds me of the anti-musical instrument Campbellites who reason the same way, that since a piano is not mentioned in the New Testament, then it is at least "safe" not to use one.

But this type of argument is fallacious when used as a rule or standard. For example, where does Brother Zaspel find Jesus or the apostles buying properties, building church buildings, setting up a schedule of services, having Sunday Schools, AWANA, High School Youth Groups, and Vacation Bible School -- practices one finds at the church where Brother Zaspel is pastor? He says the invitation is "not a matter of Biblical command or precedent;" are we assume he has a command and precedent for these practices in his own church?

When the Hardshell movement started among the Baptists in the early 1800s and eventually split in 1832, they rode the same type of hobbyhorse as Brother Zaspel is now riding -- namely, "patternism." They demanded to know by what Biblical command or precedent the "missionaries" were introducing "innovations" to carry out missions and evangelism. See the Black Rock Address and you will see the same type of argumentation is used by Brother Zaspel. They rejected tract societies, Sunday Schools, Bible Societies, Missions, Theological schools, and protract revival meetings, all on the same grounds as having no biblical command or precedent, but as being modern innovations or methods.

On Sunday;School, for example, they argued "such schools were never established by the apostles, nor commanded by Christ." 

Brother Zaspel has borrowed -- or at least employed -- the "pattenism" argument of Campbellism and Hardshellism to oppose invitations.

He also alleges that "Charles Spurgeon emulated the New Testament practice of evangelism." He says, "Spurgeon's practice was according to the Biblical model."

The fact is, Spurgeon built a Tabernacle and stood in the pulpit a few times each week and preached the Gospel. He, on occasion, had "tickets" passed out ahead of time so that seats could be assured. He used a church hymnal but did not use an organ or a piano in the services. He had a baptistery under the pulpit and baptized in a small indoor pool. Also, he even had D. L. Moody preach in the Tabernacle, and he defended Moody's evangelism in London.

Now where will Brother Zaspel find a "biblical command or precedent for any of these practices." Where did Jesus and the apostles ever conduct a service such as Spurgeon's? Where is this "Biblical model" revealed in Scripture?

3. He also equates an invitation with the method of Charles G. Finney and what he called the "anxious seat."

He says, "Those who were thus 'anxious' for their souls were invited to walk forward to the 'anxious seat' where counsel and prayer would be given them."

I have never seen anyone in my time use this "anxious seat" method in an invitation. It does not correspond to what is practiced in invitations I have seen.

Actually, I think the practice of those who do not use an invitation may be more of a parallel, at least in principle, to Finney's method. Finney's method smacked more of the same type of "preparationalism" associated with anti-invitationalism. In other words, some demand that one should show some signs of "readiness" before simply believing in the heart and confessing Christ as Savior. They may send him home with a copy of "Alleine's Alarm" or some similar book to read so as to hopefully work up certain feelings and convictions which they believe are essential before believing in Christ as Savior. Or, they may require some private consultation in which the person will be asked a number of questions, or be duly instructed in certain matters considered to be preparatory essentials. Whatever form it takes, if these things are prerequisite to believing in Christ and confessing him as Savior, it is "preparationalism." That seems somewhat similar in principle to Finney's requirements. But the fact is, even the strictest practice of this kind does not preclude false professions of faith. Rather, they appear to me to focus a person's faith on their own subjective preparations than on Christ, believing in themselves as "ready" to believe in Christ.

4. He says, "It is similarly argued that Scripture also exhorts men to be saved. 'Compel them to come in!' and 'I beseech you, be reconciled to God!' are two examples of these exhortations. But again, it is difficult to see how this lends any support whatever to the modern practice of calling sinners to the front of a building."

This implies that it would not be possible for the preacher of the Gospel to stand at the front of the church auditorium, in front of a gathering of people, call on sinners believe in Christ and come forward to confess Christ, and thereby fulfill these exhortations.

If the minister cannot fulfill those exhortations at that spot, where on earth is the "acceptable" locality? In the pastor's office? In a separate room somewhere? Is Brother Zaspel insisting that there is a "standard" time and place wherein the minister of the Gospel can f;lfill these exhortations?

5. He further alleges, "Saving faith is a pledge of allegiance to Christ. This pledge is visibly and publicly demonstrated first in water baptism and then in all of life."

This is a flawed definition of faith. Is there a Scripture which defines faith as a "pledge of allegiance to Christ"? Since Brother Zaspel looks for a "Biblical command and precedent," where is there such a "pledge of allegiance" associated with "saving faith" or "baptism"?

The first thing Philip required of the Ethiopian was an expression of his faith in Christ. He only baptized the eunuch after he heard his confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

When sinners come forward in the public invitation, they do so on their way to publicly confess Christ. Once they FIRST confess Christ as their Savior, then they are subjects for baptism -- like the Ethiopian. The first confession is with the "MOUTH," not in baptism (Romans 10:10).

6. Brother Zaspel alleges that the way people are saved is "just like every Christian was saved for eighteen-plus centuries before the invitation system was ever heard of."

But if they can't be saved during an invitation, how can Brother Zaspel himself claim that he is a saved person? Does he not profess that he was saved at the age of six, during an invitation given by his own father? If he could be saved during an invitation, why can't others likewise be saved? Why does he say that "no one is ever saved 'as a result' of an altar call" when he himself testifies that he was saved during an "altar call"? Sure, we know that the "altar call" did not save him -- no more than we believe an invitation saves -- but was it not during that "altar call" that he was saved? Why can't others likewise be saved?

7. Brother Zaspel cites John Wesley, the champion of Arminianism in England in the 1700s, and says Wesley did not use the "invitation system." He evidently believes that many of Wesley's converts were valid converts, despite the Arminian theology held by Wesley. So now he is even aligning Wesley, the Arminian, on his side as if Wesley's practice militates against invitations! Well, then, what was Wesley's system? Shall we adopt it? Will the use of it guarantee conversions on the order that Wesley saw? Will prevent false professions?

Then a little later, Brother Zaspel incorporates even Martin Luther into his column! Yes, even Luther, who baptized babies as a sacrament to regenerate them! He did not use the invitation system! Does that add sanctifying evidence that the invitation is wrong?

So now, he thinks he has Spurgeon the Baptist, Wesley the Arminian champion, and Luther the baby regenerationalist, all in his column, though the latter two "never heard" of the invitation system! Will wonders never cease?

8. Brother Zaspel uses the fallacy of "biblical terminology" in the attempt to support his case.

He says Luther used "closing with Christ," and that "this terminology is exactly Biblical."

Oh? And where may be find it in the Biblical writings? He says "look," "run," and "receive" are all "Biblical expressions" that "speak of matters of the soul."

Oh? And where may we find "run to Christ" mentioned in regard to a lost sinner's being saved? Did Paul tell the Jailer to "run"? Did Philip tell the Ethiopian to "run"? Did Jesus tell Paul on the road to Damascus to "run"? Did Peter tell his hearers on Pentecost to "run"? Did Jesus tell Nicodemus to "run" to be born again?

He also talks about doing "business with Christ." And where may that "Biblical terminology" be found. Do we ever find, "Do business with Christ, and thou shalt be saved"?

Brother Zaspel is here using the same type of argumentation we sometimes ;eet with when some object to the terms used in Calvinist theology.

But, after all, is not this argument about "terminology" something more often found in Campbellism, Oneness Pentecostalism, and similar movements than anywhere else?

9.  Then he attempts to associate the invitation with Romanism and "idea of mediatorship."

The fact is, Rome does not use the public invitation wherein people are urged to believe in Christ and come forward to openly confess Him as Savior. As for "mediatorship," ministers of the Gospel who give invitations do not represent themselves as priests to hear "confessions," but as ambassadors of Christ, urging men to believe and publicly confess Christ as Savior before all.

Somewhere, sometime, and in the presence of someone, the believer confesses Christ as Savior. Brother Zaspel says he made such a confession when he was six years old at an "altar call." If he did it during an invitation scenario and it was not Roman "mediatorship" being practiced by his father, then why can't others? He says Spurgeon "made himself available on Monday mornings. So -- did that make Spurgeon a Roman priest, hearing confession, and practicing "mediatorship"? Spurgeon would have made himself available at any time if he thought he could bring a sinner to believe and confess Christ as Savior!

10. He claims that "the preacher's duty is not to 'get decisions.'"

But as Spurgeon has pointed out in his great sermon "An Urgent Request for an Immediate Answer" (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 37, #2232), those who hear the Gospel always make some "decision." Spurgeon demanded a decision.

May I ask that everyone here will say “Yes,” or “No,” to the invitation to give himself up to Christ? If you will do so, say, “I will.” If you will not do so, say deliberately, “I will not.”

I wish I could get hold of an undecided man, and taking his hand, could say to him, “Now, you must tell me which it will be.” . . .

“Well,” says one, “I am glad you have spoken to us; I will think it over.”

No, friend, I do not mean that. I do not want you to think it over. You have had enough of thinking; I pray that God’s Spirit may lead you to an immediate decision.

11. Then Brother Zaspel indicates that he knows very much about who is converted and who is not converted.

He alleges that "Decisions and numbers there are, but the 'converts' are notoriously unconverted."

Well, the fact is, under the best of circumstances we are taught that only some are converted who hear the Gospel. The parable of the sower (Mark 10) demonstrates this.

But we do not immediately know the true professor from the false under any given circumstance. Paul seemed to have a great harvest in Galatia, but later expressed concern about them (Book of Galatians). Paul once had a Demas by his side, one who later forsook Paul for the world. Jesus had a Judas, even one chosen to be among his first disciples. So we need not be held accountable for any false professions if we are preaching the Gospel of Christ. There indeed will be such, under any method we may use in soliciting response to the Gospel.

12. Whereas Brother Zaspel condemns the invitation system rather roundly, he nevertheless seems to allow that "at least at times it has witnessed conversions."

We do know at least one who was saved during an invitation -- namely, Brother Zaspel himself. I presume he allows that others were saved under his father's ministry, even though his father used the "altar call."

The fact is, I think many anti-invitationalists such as Brother Zaspel also have reason to be thankful for such invitation times as he experienced, for they, too, trace their own conversion to such times.

One redeeming element, at least, of the less-than-supersized-Calvinist ministries is that the Gospel is aggressively preached and souls are urged to believe and confess Christ as Savior -- otherwise, many today who are Calvinists might still be languishing in sin, waiting for that "pre-faith regeneration" to somehow take place. We recall that Spurgeon himself was converted in less-than-Calvinist circumstances in a Methodist Chapel, and though he could not abide attending it thereafter due to its doctrinal error, he nevertheless blessed God for the part it played in his "looking unto Jesus" for salvation.

Many Calvinists of our time, especially those in the Southern Baptist ranks, were saved under less-than-Calvinist ministries. God will bless the Gospel by whomever it is preached. If Calvinists will not preach it and urge immediate acceptance by their hearers, then God will of the stones raise up children unto Abraham. He will call His people, and regardless of the theological category of the preacher, if he delivers the Gospel of Christ, the Lord will bless His Word. His Word does not return void (Isaiah 55:11).

Unless God only calls Calvinists and they only preach the Word, then we can expect conversion to take place under others who are less-than-Calvinists.-- Bob L. Ross

Recent Articles of possible interest on similar subjects listed below.
Available via email.











"ENQUIRERS AND CONVERTS" By Spurgeon [04/21/04] 

C. H. Spurgeon:

Yea, and are there not preachers who appear to be half afraid that some poor non-elect sinner may get into heaven by accident. Hear how they define, and distinguish, and denounce. I confess I have no sympathy with those who would drive men back; far rather would I DRAW THEM FORWARD.
Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Sermon #1243, page 389. On the Internet link, page 4.

Pilgrim Website:
Second Website: BAPTISTS OF TEXAS Committed to the Bible
For Spurgeon sermons in SPANISH on the internet:

Email:  (Bob L. Ross)
By request, names are added to my Email List, or removed

Visit this page:
Charles Haddon Spurgeon"The Prince of Preachers Live!"

Publishers of C. H. Spurgeon's Sermons & Other Works
Send your snail-mail address for a printed Price List.
Pilgrim Publications, Box 66, Pasadena, TX ; 77501
Phone: (713) 477-4261.   Fax: (713) 477-7561
Map to Pilgrim Book Store
1609 Preston, Pasadena, TX 77503