Whosoever Will

Most Calvinists oppose the use of a public invitation or altar call at the end of sermons.¹ They think such practices tend to be confusing at best, spiritually dangerous at worst, and certainly a hindrance to true evangelism.² Strict five-point Calvinists criticize the invitation on three grounds. First, they believe it has no biblical support. Second, they believe its origin can be traced back only a few hundred years. Third, they think it is incompatible with their understanding of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace. When young preachers or even veteran pulpiteers read Calvinistic tractates railing against the invitation, they might wonder whether they should likewise abandon the practice of calling sinners publicly to confess their faith in Christ. I personally understand this confusion, having gone through a similar period of questioning during my formative years as an itinerate evangelist.

This chapter will include a little of my struggle over the public invitation. Then I will respond to the Calvinistic critics by showing that the invitation has a strong biblical foundation, has been used throughout church history, and should be given by preachers of various theological persuasions. Since John 3:16 states clearly and emphatically that “whoever believes” in Christ might “have everlasting life,” it would seem incumbent upon all preachers to invite people to receive that life.

A Personal Story

As a vocational evangelist during the 1970s and 1980s, I conducted evangelistic meetings in churches throughout the Middle Atlantic States. I preached gospel-centered sermons on the great doctrines of the Bible (justification, redemption, forgiveness, reconciliation, judgment, propitiation, regeneration), and then, like Spurgeon, I made a “beeline to the cross.” At the conclusion of my messages, I invited listeners to repent of their sins, place faith in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ alone for salvation, and so indicate by coming forward to the altar where they would receive counsel and clarification. Over the years many have responded.

During this period I was introduced to books and articles by Reformed theologians who maligned evangelistic invitations, contending that such appeals lacked biblical support. As a result, I began to question the validity of asking sinners to respond publicly to the gospel.

Since I was an itinerant evangelist, the issue was paramount. I needed to know if an invitation was a legitimate means of calling people to Christ. These lingering doubts had an immediate and noticeable impact on my preaching. While the content of my sermons remained constant, I found myself dreading to give an invitation at the sermon’s end for fear of adding works to faith.

In order to resolve these issues to my own satisfaction, I conducted my own investigation into the matter. At the time I was working part-time on my doctorate, so I chose as my dissertation topic, “The Public Invitation: Its Nature, Biblical Validity, and Practicability.” With no idea where the journey might lead, I approached the subject with as much objectivity as possible. I only desired to discover the truth, report it, and then act accordingly. After three years of intense study, I concluded that the gospel invitation has scriptural support and, therefore, can be given without contradicting New Testament principles or the conscience of the preacher.

The book The Effective Invitation³ is a popularization of my Ph.D. dissertation. It has become a standard textbook for evangelism and homiletic courses in evangelical Bible colleges and seminaries. After its publication, Errol Hulse wrote a Calvinist response, basing much of his criticism on misinterpretation of what I wrote rather than on substantive issues.⁴

In the remainder of this chapter, I will present a biblical and historical foundation for the public invitation and then answer the theological concerns of the critics. In doing so, I hope to help pastors who may be struggling with this issue to settle the matter once and for all. Second, I hope to show that giving a public invitation and holding to Calvinism are not necessarily incompatible.

Biblical Basis for the Invitation

Calvinist critics contend that the invitation is a modern contrivance, dating back only to nineteenth-century evangelist Charles Finney. In reality, examples abound in the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. This section will examine only a sampling of the public invitations found in the Old and New Testaments.

Old Testament Examples

The initial example goes back to the book of beginnings. When the first humans sinned and hid from God, He called them out into the open (Gen 3:8). Forgiveness and redemption were available to them only as they obediently responded to the appeal; thus, coming out into the open was essential to their salvation. To remain hidden means to remain lost. The sinner must answer God’s invitation.

A few chapters later God invites Noah’s family into the ark where they will escape the wrath to come (Gen 7:1). Had they only “believed in their heart” but not taken the action required of them, they would have perished in the deluge. They obeyed the Lord’s command (vv 6–7) and found safety.

When God summoned Abram physically to leave his family and homeland and proceed by faith to a land unknown, he answered the divine directive (Gen 12:1–4). Upon the basis of Abram’s response, God formed a people for Himself.

After the exodus, God led the children of Israel into the Sinai and instructed Moses to declare on His behalf, “You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself. Now therefore, if you indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be . . . to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:4–6).⁵ Moses obediently gathered to one place the elders and the people and conveyed to “them all these words which the LORD commanded him” (v. 7). In an act of public unanimity, the people replied, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do” (v 8). On the basis of their public profession, God instructed Moses to consecrate them as His peculiar people, and a nation was born in a day.

Later when Moses descended the mountain with the law in hand, he was shocked to discover that the people had fallen into licentiousness and faithless idolatry. In righteous indignation reminiscent of Jesus cleaning out the temple, Moses broke the idol, cleansed the camp, and challenged them with the words, “Whoever is on the LORD’s side, let him come to me!” (Exod 32:26). His call for a public reply is answered readily: “And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him” (v. 26).

Then, Joshua, Israel’s second great leader, gathered the nation together in a public venue to rehearse for them God’s deliverance in times past and to invite them to abandon idolatry and serve Yahweh (Josh 24:14). His conclusion rang loud and clear: “Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve” (v. 15a). Their choices were between the gods of Egypt or the Amorites or Yahweh. He then announced, “But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD!” (v. 15b). Joshua forced the people to make a public choice, and they answered, “We will serve the LORD” (v. 21). In response Joshua placed a stone next to the sanctuary of the Lord to remind the people of their commitment (vv. 25–27).

Likewise, the prophet Elijah confronted his generation on Mount Carmel with a similar challenge: “How long will you falter between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him”(1 Kgs 18:21). When they took no action, Elijah called on God to send fire down from heaven as evidence of His mighty power (vv. 38–39). “Now when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces; and they said, ‘The Lord, He is God! The LORD, He is God’ ” (v. 39).

In the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign as king over Judah, the high priest Hilkiah discovered the lost scroll of the Law (2 Kgs 22:3–10). For years the nation had lived in sin, ignorant of God’s Word. Upon hearing the words of the Law, Josiah rent his clothes, showing the depth of his repentance (v. 11). He then called a nationwide convocation to address his people. All gathered before him, including prophets, priests, and people, and he had the Law read aloud (23:1–2).

Then the king stood by a pillar and made a covenant before the LORD, to follow the LORD, and keep His commandments and His testimonies and His statutes, with all his heart, and all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant that were written in this book. And all the people took their stand for the covenant (2 Kgs 23:3).

Josiah’s call and the nation’s public affirmation brought revival to Judah and restored true worship of God (vv. 4–23).

New Testament Examples

Jesus called people to follow Him publicly. He promised, “Whosoever confesses Me before men, him will I also confess before My Father in heaven” (Matt 10:32). Conversely, He warned, “But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven” (v. 33). Jesus offered little hope of salvation to those who wished to remain anonymous.

One of His favorite words of exhortation was “Come.” To some He said, “Come, follow me” (Matt 19:21). To others he called out, “Come and see” (John 1:39). To the masses He cried, “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt 11:28). On another occasion he commanded, “Come, take up the cross and follow Me” (Mark 10:21). All sinners were exhorted to “come like little children” (Matt 19:14). In the Revelation both the Spirit and the bride say, “Come,” and partake of “the water of life freely” (Rev 22:17). Both God and the evangelist issued this dual call.

Many responded to Jesus’ call. To Zaccheus, perched high in a tree, He said, “Make haste and come down” (Luke 19:5). In full view of friends and foe alike who knew him as a despicable but wealthy tax collector, he answered the appeal (vv. 8–9). Had he remained in a tree, Zaccheus would have missed his opportunity to be saved.

When Jesus said, “Who touched Me?” a woman with an issue of blood responded openly. The record shows that “fearing and trembling . . . [she] came and fell down before Him. . . . And He said to her, ‘Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace’ ” (Mark 5:33–34). Had she remained hidden among the crowd, she might have been healed but not saved. Similarly, the leper returned after his healing, “fell down on his face,” and thanked Jesus publicly (Luke 17:16). After inquiring into the whereabouts of the other nine lepers, Jesus pronounced, “Your faith has made you well” (v. 19). Again, an outward action was tied to salvation.

The Importance of Making a Public Profession of Faith

The apostle Paul reminds us “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation” (Rom 10:9–10). However one cuts it, this text links public confession to salvation. One must both believe and confess the facts of the gospel in order to be saved (v. 9). Just as the heart believes “to righteousness,” so the mouth confesses “to salvation” (v. 10).

Since confession is important to salvation, we must ask, “In what way did the early believers outwardly confess their allegiance to Christ?” James H. Jauncey believes that the apostolic church considered baptism to be the initial act of public confession.⁶ Faris D. Whitesell agrees:

Baptism stood for about the same thing in apostolic days as coming forward and making an open declaration of faith does today. Baptism was the public line of demarcation between the old life and the new in New Testament times, and most certainly called for public confession and personal identification with the Christian group.⁷

Most likely, sinners demonstrated their repentance and faith through baptism. It is no surprise then to find John the Baptist—the first to announce the imminent arrival of God’s kingdom—calling upon a wayward Jewish nation to respond publicly by repenting and submitting to baptism (Matt 3:1; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). Those who heeded his instructions “were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins” (Matt 3:6). This public act of contrition was a required step to receive forgiveness of sins and prepare for entrance into the kingdom of God.

When Jesus began His ministry, He too invited His hearers to respond in a public way through repentance and baptism (Mark 1:15; John 3:26; 4:1). By taking the required action, the respondents signified their desire to follow Him, just as those today are expected to respond in similar fashion.

That the resurrected Jesus included baptism in the Great Commission proves its strategic role in the evangelistic task (Matt 28:18–20). “Baptizing them” marks the initial step in making a disciple. When Jesus directs His apostles to baptize, He is, by implication, charging them to extend a public invitation.

Is it any wonder that after the Lord’s ascension, the first preachers of the gospel took seriously Jesus’ command to baptize? Speaking from the portico of the temple, Peter concluded his famous Pentecost sermon with these words of exhortation:

“Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” . . . Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them (Acts 2:38,41, emphasis added).

Some who reject baptism as part of the gospel call often query, “Where could such a baptism have taken place? After all, the Jordan River is miles away, and the local pools could not accommodate the large numbers.” This quandary was answered when the southern wall of the temple mount was excavated in the early 1970s.⁸ Numerous ritual pools were unearthed, located in front of the steps leading up to the temple. Since pilgrims had to be cleansed ritually before entering the temple on Pentecost, these pools served that purpose and likely served as the baptismal pools for the 3,000. One can only imagine the impact that this baptism had on the Jewish multitudes making their way to the temple.

On many occasions vast numbers responded to the preaching of Jesus and the apostles. On Pentecost 3,000 stepped forward (Acts 2:41). Another 5,000 were added later to their ranks (Acts 4:4). That it was possible to number the converts indicates that they were identifiable in some way. Baptism was the most likely means of distinguishing between the lost and the saved.

As one walks through the pages of the book of Acts, he finds Philip “preaching Christ” and the “kingdom of God” in Samaria (Acts 8:5, 12) and people responding in faith and baptism (v. 13). After his successful crusade in Samaria, the Spirit directs Philip to Gaza where he meets and expounds the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26–35):

Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him (vv. 8:36–38).

Likewise, after preaching the gospel in Caesarea to the Gentile household of Cornelius, a Roman centurion, the apostle Peter extended to them an invitation to be baptized (Acts 10:44–47). They obliged and were the first Gentile converts to Christ.

After Saul of Tarsus’s experience with Christ on the Damascus road, he is guided to Ananias, a Jewish believer, who calls upon his repentant kinsman to be baptized: “Brother Saul, . . . the God of our fathers has chosen you. . . . [to] be His witness to all men. . . . And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:13–16). Luke records that Saul obeyed the command and submitted to believer’s baptism (Acts 9:18).

Propelled into the ministry, the apostle Paul eventually journeys to Philippi where he meets Lydia, a seller of fine fabrics, “whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And [then] she was baptized, and her household” (Acts 16:14–15 KJV). While in Philippi, Paul and his companion Silas are arrested and are able to show the local jailer the way to salvation:

Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household (Acts 16:32–34).

In Corinth, Paul “reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 18:4). One of his many converts, “Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized” (Acts 18:8).

The call to public baptism was an important part of the preaching mission of the early church. Those who responded in obedience demonstrated their faith by identifying with the crucified and risen Lord through baptism (Rom 6:4–5; Col 2:12). It is impossible to separate the proclamation and the invitation to be baptized. What happened when water was not available? The Scriptures are silent. Possibly an interim appeal was given until water became available.

Why Baptize Today?

The mandate to evangelize and baptize extends “until the end of the age.” A clarion call must be sounded to restore baptism to its New Testament place of prominence. When water is available, the pastor or evangelist should conclude his gospel message with an appeal for persons to repent and demonstrate it publicly by presenting themselves immediately for baptism. When conditions do not make such an appeal possible, the preacher should give the invitation for sinners to repent and publicly display their commitment in some other way. The new convert should then be told about the importance of baptism, and arrangements should be made for him to be baptized at a future date.

The Invitation Throughout History

Adversaries of the public invitation claim it is a relatively recent homiletic invention.⁹ While this assertion has no basis in historical fact, it is correct to say that the invitation fell into disuse soon after the apostolic period and did not make a full comeback until modern times. So few examples of invitations can be found in historical records prior to the 1600s because Roman Catholicism dominated the Western world for more than a millennium. A salvation based on the sacraments meant there was no reason to call people publicly to profess faith in Christ. Only with the advent of the Protestant Reformation did the invitation reclaim its rightful place in evangelistic preaching, but only after a struggle. During the first 100 years of the Reformation, Scripture translation into the vernacular tongue and its distribution to the masses were the main vehicles of evangelism.

Roman Catholics Who Were Exceptions to the Rule

Even during the Middle Ages, however, a few Catholic preachers broke with tradition and called upon converts publicly to profess their faith in Christ. According to Lloyd M. Perry, the Crusade-era evangelist Bernard of Clairvaux (1093–1153) issued public invitations on a regular basis. He noted, “The basic appeal of Bernard of Clairvaux was for people to repent of their sins. Often he would call for a show of hands from those who wished to be restored to fellowship with God or the church.”¹⁰ Peter of Bruys (?-c.1131) was another evangelist who strongly spoke out against infant baptism, the veneration of the crucifix, and many other unscriptural practices of the established church. He was a forerunner of the Anabaptist movement and preached the gospel, calling men to repent, believe, and be baptized.¹¹ Arnold of Brescia (1100–1155) also took a strong stand against Roman Catholic sacramentalism and for the pure gospel, calling his hearers to submit to believer’s baptism. He was eventually hanged, his body burned, and his ashes emptied into the Tiber River.

Anabaptists: Filling the Gap

In the transition from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism, the Anabaptists asked for a public response to the gospel. Opposing the church of Rome on the issues of infant baptism, establishment of the priesthood, and the veneration of Mary, they called sinners to repent of their sins, place their faith in Christ, and present themselves for rebaptism. They immediately faced strong opposition, and as a result, many were martyred. But they also found themselves the target of Protestant ire as well.

Balthasar Hubmaier (1481–1528), the most prominent German Anabaptist of his day, was burned at the stake. His wife was drowned in the Danube River, symbolic of the aversion the established church had to believer’s baptism. Prior to his death, Hubmaier had won thousands of converts to Christ.¹²

Conrad Grebel (c. 1498–1526), the father of the Swiss Anabaptist movement, preached the gospel and called upon his hearers to be rebaptized as a profession of their faith. Grebel performed the first adult baptism of the Reformation. The Reformed state church under Zwingli moved into action against him. On March 7, 1526, the Zürich council had passed an edict that made adult rebaptism punishable by drowning. Charged with an illegal act, Grebel was arrested and imprisoned. He managed to escape but died a short time later.¹³

Felix Manz (c. 1498–1527), the best scholar of the movement, became the first casualty of the edict, suffering martyrdom in Zürich by drowning. George Blaurock (c. 1491–1529), a former Roman Catholic priest, was the founder of the Swiss Brethren movement in Zurich and the foremost Anabaptist evangelist of his day. He was condemned and burned at the stake after rebaptizing one thousand new converts in four and one-half years of ministry.¹⁴

The Reformation

Although leading lights of the Reformation condemned the practice of public rebaptism, they required church members to profess publicly their faith in Christ and declare assurance of salvation before being allowed to take communion.¹⁵ Without an accompanying public profession of faith, a member’s salvation was considered spurious. Such a practice likely started with John Calvin, who called on believers to make a public pledge that they had assurance of salvation before partaking of the bread and wine.¹⁶ The 1662 Synod reaffirmed that a public confession of faith “before the church” was necessary to gain admission to the Communion table.¹⁷

The First Great Awakening

According to McLendon, in the early 1740s, Congregationalist pastor Eleazar Wheelock, a strict Calvinist and founder of Dartmouth College, sensing a move of the Spirit at the conclusion of his evening sermon, “called to the distressed to gather in the seats below so he could more conveniently converse with them.”¹⁸ This call predated Finney’s revival ministry scene by 90 years.

George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards, both strong Calvinists during the height of the Great Awakening, exhorted sinners at the close of their sermons to meet with them privately for spiritual counsel.¹⁹ These after-meetings were held in parsonages, barns, or some other conveniently located building. Through use of delayed-response invitations, throngs came to Christ.

Between the first and second Great Awakenings, the Separatist Baptists on this side of the Atlantic²⁰ and the Methodists on the other side²¹ were also calling for the anxious and those under spiritual distress to come forward to find rest for their souls.

The Second Great Awakening

The “camp meetings” of the 1790s on the western frontier of America were the catalyst that sparked the Second Great Awakening. Fervent preaching and public invitations characterized these mass gatherings. Organizers erected altars in front of the speaker’s platform where convicted sinners could kneel and find comfort for their souls.²² The Awakening on the East Coast, led by Yale President Timothy Dwight, combined Calvinism and revivalism and employed the after-meeting model of the invitation.

By the time Finney had stepped onto the scene, the public invitation had been practiced in one form or another for over a century. Among Finney’s contemporaries and staunchest Calvinistic opponents were “Old Light” Congregationalists, who, like Calvin two centuries before, ironically called for church members publicly to profess faith in Christ and declare assurance of salvation before taking Communion.²³ These same opponents pointed to Asahel Nettleton (1783–1844), the first American-born evangelist and a Finney contemporary, as the ideal evangelist who preached sinners into the kingdom without issuing an invitation. Historical records tell a different story. Nettleton actually gave a delayed-response invitation at the conclusion of his evangelistic sermons, exhorting listeners to attend an “inquirer’s meeting” after the service where they would receive special instruction regarding their soul’s salvation. He used the inquiry room “for those who felt they were ready for such an adventure.”²⁴ C. E. Autrey explains: “The inquiry room gave him a chance to separate those under conviction from the rest of the congregation in order to instruct them properly. In the inquiry room individuals could speak with others without the excitement and pressure of the crowd.”²⁵

Nettleton likely borrowed his methods from Whitefield and Edwards, two of his heroes. One wonders how coming forward to an anxious bench qualitatively differs from attending an inquirer’s meeting since both ask sinners to move physically from their seats in the auditorium to another location where they will receive instruction.

Two Calvinist Representatives of the Modern Era

Antagonists allege that Charles H. Spurgeon, a five-point Calvinist and arguably the most powerful preacher of the late nineteenth century, resisted all use of the public invitation. Again, the critics offer no evidence for their claims. Spurgeon always preached for a verdict and supported others who did the same.²⁶ According to Eric Hayden, a former pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, since the architecture of the building did not lend itself to hundreds coming forward, Spurgeon did the next best thing. He “would often request enquirers to go below to one of the basement lecture halls to be counseled by his elders.”²⁷ On other occasions he invited seekers to meet with him, usually in the vestry on Tuesday at 3:00 PM, to discuss their soul’s salvation.²⁸ He regularly used lay exhorters to watch out for people who came under conviction during a sermon, a practice John Wesley popularized a century before.²⁹ These exhorters were given freedom to deal with the troubled souls. Spurgeon’s magazine, The Sword and the Trowel, often reported on the evangelistic exploits of his ministerial students and other ordained evangelists who spread the gospel throughout London. One entry tells how “a score came into the inquiry room nightly; and on Monday evening about fifty stood up to acknowledge having received Christ during the meeting.”³⁰

John MacArthur Jr., well-known Bible expositor and strict Calvinist, was reared in the home of a Southern Baptist pastor. Following in his father’s footsteps, he attended seminary, entered the ministry, and was called by Grace Community Church (CA) to be its pastor. Under his tutelage, the congregation grew from 450 people to more than 5,000. In an interview MacArthur explained his invitational method: “We see hundreds saved and baptized every year. We never have a service without an invitation, and we never have an invitation without people coming into our prayer rooms.”³¹ He went on to say:

I personally believe that all preaching must be persuasive preaching. When someone comes to hear me speak, I am trying to urge him to make a decision. In other words, the whole goal of my preaching is to pin the guy to the wall. He is going to have to say, “I will” or “I won’t do that.” At the close of every service I say something like, “If you want to know Jesus Christ . . . and embrace Jesus Christ, then I want you to come to the prayer room.”³²

Answering the Critics: Theological Considerations

One of last century’s most vocal opponents of the public invitation was the late Martyn Lloyd-Jones, successor to G. Campbell Morgan as senior pastor at Westminster Chapel in London, England.³³ In his book Preaching and Preachers, he says he will give 10 reasons for opposing the public invitation.³⁴ As Lloyd-Jones was a leading spokesman for Reformed thought, his arguments against the public invitation can be considered representative of the movement as a whole.

Examining and answering each objection in turn can put to rest the charge that the public invitation is based on defective theology. First, Lloyd-Jones claims that the public invitation is wrongheaded because it puts direct pressure on the human will.³⁵ Believing three parts—intellect, emotions, and will—comprise the inner man, he insists that the will should never be approached directly but only indirectly by first going through the intellect and the emotions.³⁶ His concern is that the invitation is an effort in coercion.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones’s concern about directly approaching the will does not speak convincingly against the public invitation but only against what is perceived to be the abuse of the invitation. Of course, appeals should never seek to coerce or manipulate people but rather aim at persuading them by use of Scripture.

Second, Lloyd-Jones postulates that many people come forward because of the personality of the evangelist, or for psychological influences, rather than valid spiritual reasons.³⁷ This argument is difficult to prove or disprove since it is next to impossible to judge accurately an inquirer’s motives. However, like his first argument, this objection only addresses invitational abuses, not the legitimate use of an invitation.

Third, Lloyd-Jones objects that public invitations are often tacked onto sermons; thus, they divide proclamation into two distinct parts.³⁸ Lloyd-Jones’s problem, however, is with the use of Scripture. Peter not only preached the gospel on the day of Pentecost but called for listeners to repent and present themselves publicly for believer’s baptism. The invitation to repent included a call for public action.

Fourth, he is concerned that the public invitation implies that sinners have an inherent power to come to Christ, which they do not. He argues against “self-conversion,” noting that those dead in trespasses and sins are unable to respond to the invitation (1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:1).³⁹

Lloyd-Jones fails to mention that God uses the preached Word to “grant” repentance and faith (Acts 5:30–31; 11:18; Rom 10:17). That which is normally impossible becomes possible through the supernatural power of God. As Leighton Ford reminds us:

If anyone feels that he cannot give an invitation for a sinner to come to Christ, because of man’s inablility, let him remember that Jesus invited a man whose hand was paralyzed to do what he could not do! “. . . Stretch out your hand . . .” Jesus commanded (Matthew 12:13), and the man obeyed the command and did what he would not do! Let him remember also that Jesus told a dead man to do something he could not do—to live! “. . . Lazarus, come forth,” He commanded (John 11:43), and Lazarus obeyed the voice of Jesus and did what he could not do.⁴⁰

During the invitation time, God speaks through the evangelist, calling the spiritually dead to life (2 Cor 5:20). God, not man, resurrects the soul.

Fifth, Lloyd-Jones argues that most evangelists attempt to manipulate the Holy Spirit via the invitation.¹ Exactly what Lloyd-Jones means is unclear since he does not elaborate. Possibly he is saying that evangelists often succeed in getting people down the aisle when the Holy Spirit is not moving. No respectable gospel preacher attempts to manipulate his listeners or coerce the Holy Spirit to act against His will. As an ambassador of the King, he simply delivers the King’s ultimatum and awaits the reply.

Sixth, Dr. Lloyd-Jones states that many people come forward for selfish reasons, that is, to gain acceptance by family, to escape judgment, and so on.⁴² Again, assessing a person’s motive for answering the gospel call is impossible, but by giving precise instructions during his invitation, the preacher can be assured that his audience clearly understands what he is asking them to do and why. Another preventive step is to make sure those who come forward are thoroughly counseled to ascertain why they responded. The gospel can then be explained again, and the seeker challenged to repent and believe in Christ.

Seventh, Lloyd-Jones believes public invitations cause people to think walking forward saves them.⁴³ Since people can embrace erroneous beliefs, the evangelist must explain prior to the invitation that coming forward saves no one. He needs to explain further that coming forward is the outward expression of repentance and faith.

The eighth criticism is that the public invitation supplants the work of the Holy Spirit.⁴⁴ Earlier Lloyd-Jones said the evangelist tries to manipulate the Spirit; now he argues that the evangelist attempts, by the public invitation, to do the Spirit’s work.

In reality the preacher and the Spirit work hand in hand in evangelism, and at times distinguishing where one starts and the other ends is difficult. They are united in a single mission. Together they exhort, convince, persuade, and call people to Christ. The apostle Paul said to Timothy, “The Lord stood with me . . . that all the Gentiles might hear” (2 Tim 4:17, emphasis added). To the Colossians he wrote: “We preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. To this end, I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily” (Col 1:28–29, emphasis added).

John the apostle closes his book with this exhortation: “The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’ ” (Rev 22:17). Clearly, the evangelist views his preaching the gospel and issuing the invitation as working in unison with the Spirit. As C. E. Autrey logically deduces, “The evangelist is not pushing the Holy Spirit aside when he pleads in the invitation any more than when he prepares and delivers the body of the sermon.”⁴⁵

Finally, Martyn Lloyd-Jones objects that the public invitation calls sinners to “decide” for Christ.⁴⁶ Here he argues that no one decides for God since their wills are in bondage.

But God holds listeners responsible for responding to the gospel. The evangelist urgently declares, “God . . . now commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). He then calls for sinners to obey that command and be saved. The responsibility for salvation lies with the hearers, not God. They must choose! Stephen Olford made this observation:

There is nothing more thrilling in all the world than to issue the call of the gospel and to see men and women believe. [The] . . . redemptive invitation of God demands a verdict. Man can never confront the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and remain indifferent, apathetic or aloof. He has to decide. With the revelation and invitation of the gospel man has to give an answer. If he believes he is saved; if he rejects he is lost.⁴⁷

Ironically, although Lloyd-Jones criticized others for giving an invitation, he issued an appeal himself. At the end of each sermon, he called upon his listeners to repent and believe the gospel. While not inviting them forward, he did exhort them to meet with him in private after the church service or in his office the next morning, when he would personally lead them to Christ. Such incongruence is remarkable. As Billy Graham once commented:

We have noticed that some who are against public evangelistic invitations go to almost any length using the appeal in personal evangelism. If it is right to ask a single sinner to repent and receive the Lord Jesus Christ, why is it not right to ask a whole audience to do the same?⁴⁸

A Modest Proposal for Calvinists

Examining the concept of “the call” offers a possible solution for Calvinists who oppose the invitation. Calvinists believe in two “calls.” The first is the “general” call, also known as the “universal” or “outer” call. The second is designated the “specific” or the “inner” call, also known as the “effectual” call. The general call can be identified with the public invitation. It is a summons for all sinners to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. This exhortation, aimed at the entire audience, seeks an immediate response. On behalf of God, the preacher demands a response (Acts 17:31). The general call can be and often is resisted (Acts 7:51; Luke 18:18–24).

Whereas the outer call is the work of the evangelist, the inner call is the work of the Spirit (John 6:37,44,65). He opens hearts and makes sinners ready and willing to respond (Acts 16:14). This understanding of the two kinds of call should be an encouragement to the gospel herald. Jesus speaks of the “many” who “are called” [via the general call], “but few” that “are chosen” [via the effectual call] (Matt 20:16).

Once one distinguishes between the two calls, he must also recognize that not all who respond to the outward call will be regenerated. The parable of the four soils is proof of that (Mark 4:1–20), but some indeed will be instantly born again. Thomas Watson wrote, “The outward call brings men to a profession of Christ, the inward to a possession of Christ.”⁴⁹ The evangelist preaches the gospel and calls people to repent, believe, and demonstrate their desire to do so in a public manner, preferably through baptism. Since he cannot see the hearts of those who respond outwardly, he must accept their profession of faith at face value. On the day of Pentecost, those heeding Peter’s admonition took a public stand for Christ and were welcomed immediately into the church. We should do likewise.

Only time will reveal the genuineness of one’s commitment to Christ. In due course, those who show no evidence of conversion and remain in their sin can be dealt with according to the principles of church discipline (Matt 18:15–18).

Conclusion

While a public profession of faith is not a guarantee of salvation, it always accompanies salvation (Rom 10:9–10). That is why we give an invitation.

We do not practice calling people to follow Christ publicly for pragmatic reasons but because we honestly desire to follow the pattern found in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Therefore, let us not shy away from giving an invitation because of its critics or its many abuses. Let us strive instead to emulate Christ and the apostles by inviting people to follow in the Master’s footsteps.

If Calvinist preachers, as well as others from different theological persuasions, would start calling their hearers to a public profession of faith, I believe the Holy Spirit would draw many more people to Christ under their ministry. Do we actually believe we can improve on the New Testament method of calling people to Christ?

NOTES

1. E. Hulse, The Great Invitation (Hertfordshire, England: Evangelical Press, 1986) stands as an example of the strict Calvinist who opposes the public invitation. He disparagingly labels the public invitation an “evangelical sacrament” (103) and devotes the entirety of chapter seven to his claim (104–9). L. S. Chafer, True Evangelism (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002) is an example of a four-point Calvinist who holds the same position.

2. Chafer, True Evangelism, 17–18.

3. R. Alan Streett, The Effective Invitation (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1995).

4. See footnote 1 for complete bibliographical data of Hulse’s The Great Invitation. Hulse also critically examined R.T. Kendall, Stand Up and Be Counted (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984). At the time of Hulse’s publication, Kendall served as pastor of Westminster Chapel in London, England, having succeeded Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a thoroughgoing Calvinist who refused to issue a public invitation. When Kendall started calling for public commitments of faith, he became a favorite target of Calvinistic criticism.

5. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture passages in this chapter are from the New King James Version.

6. James H. Jauncey, Psychology for Successful Evangelism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), 17.

7. Ibid., 397

8. Bill Grasham, “Archeology and Christian Baptism,” ResQ 43 (2001). Located at: http://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/archives/2000s/vol_43_no_2_ contents/grasham. html.

9. According to J. F. Thornbury, God Sent Revival (Grand Rapids: Evangelical Press, 1977), Finney first called people in 1831 to come forward and kneel at the anxious bench. This use of “means” or “new measures” caused a stir among “Old Light” Calvinistic pastors and evangelists. Finney’s staunchest opponents were evangelist Asahel Nettleton and New England pastor Lyman Beecher. After a summit conference to discuss the matter, Beecher chose to side with Finney and declared that the new measures were not incompatible with Calvinistic theology.

10. L. M. Perry and J. R. Strubhar, Evangelistic Preaching (Chicago: Moody Press, 1979), 44.

11. Streett, Effective Invitation, 85.