The Fallacy of Altar Calls

The Separate Baptists (of the Sandy Creek tradition) were actually giving invitations thirty years before Finney was even born. Likewise, Anabaptists, during the "great revivals in the Carolinas" in the 1760’s. William Lumpkin writes of this on page 56 of in his 1961 effort "Baptist Foundations in the South":

At the close of the sermon, the minister would come down from the pulpit and while singing a suitable hymn would go around among the brethren shaking hands. The hymn being sung, he would then extend an invitation to such persons as felt themselves poor guilty sinners, and were anxiously inquiring the way of salvation, to come forward and
kneel near the stand, or if they preferred, they could kneel at their seats, proffering to unite
with them in prayer for their conversion

Likewise, this sort of thing was already being practiced by some of the Methodists, prior to Finney.

I think Finney certainly "legitimatized" (ugh!) or "popularized" (better!) the practice, but I wouldn't say that this was his own innovation - he simply capitalized on it, and frankly the altar call of today hardly resembles the "mourner's bench" of Finney-ism.

Finney believed that a person was converted in a moment of crisis that was brought about by various (external) means. He might preach a sermon on hell, and the certainty of it for anyone who was unwilling to repent of every sin and then call upon his hearers to "make a clean break" - whereby they were called to the front and counseled to repent - but with such a gravity that the expectation was that unless you could repent in such a way that you would never sin again, your repentance would have been fake and useless. Thus the invitation was not to say some quick "salvific" prayer, to something almost as bad - it was to raise your fear of death and hell to such crisis levels, that you would be willing to do anything to avoid the crushing weight of your fear - including agreeing to never sin again - and that if your profession was sincere, you would be born again.

People tend to paint Finney as the originator of easy believe-ism, and certainly the garbage he brought to the table paved the way - but he himself fell off the horse on the other side of easy believe-ism; teaching that perfectionism was the mark of genuine salvation, and that salvation was apprehended in a moment of crisis.

Or at least, that's what I have read. I know Finney's theology was all messed up - but some of the credit he gets today for his role in propagating the altar call is "inflated". He wasn't the first to use it, nor was he the inventor of it, nor was his altar call all that similar to the altar calls of today.

I am not fan of Finney's and certainly not a fan of altar call's, but if there is room for charity towards him, I try to offer that when I can. He was certainly a heretic, but that is not the same as apostate. Hyper-Calvinism was rampant in Finney's day, and much of Finney's error is an over-reaction to the error of his day. Maybe I have a soft spot in my heart for the guy, but I do like to recognize that bad as he was, he wasn't as bad as he is often made out to be.

Daniel,
I always appreciate your insight. I did more research and found that, interestingly, you are right.

"...his practice of using the mourner's bench (or "anxious seat") is so completely different from the modern practice of asking someone to "raise their hand" or to walk down an aisle, that the two methods should not even be compared. Finney employed the mourner's bench in order to facilitate discussion with people who were anxious about their souls. It was never said that a person was saved merely because they came to the front of the church and sat on the bench; rather, the people who took the mourner's bench were making a public statement that they wanted to abandon sin and obtain counsel about their souls. But such individuals often came away from these counseling sessions feeling even worse, because they did not "get through" to God. Some people simply could not find a heart to repent."--(The Memoirs of Charles G. Finney: The Complete Restored Text)

When sinners and backsliders are really convicted by the Holy Ghost, they are greatly ashamed of themselves. Until they manifest deep shame, it should be known that the probe is not used sufficiently, and they do not see themselves as they ought. . . . [There must be] that kind of genuine and deep conviction which breaks the sinner and the backslider right down, and makes him unutterably ashamed and confounded before the Lord, until he is not only stripped of every excuse, but driven to go all lengths in justifying God and condemning himself. --(Charles G. Finney, Reflections on Revival)

However, (and as you have noted regarding his later-in-life unsound theology) Finney was found to reject doctrine that was central to the true gospel. In Finney's own words: "I could not receive his (his pastor) views on the subject of atonement, regeneration, faith, repentance, the slavery of the Will, or any of their kindred doctrines." None of these, and many other Biblical doctrines that he came to reject, have anything to do with hyper-Calvinism.

However, the main point of this post is not Finney. Though I find it very interesting to note his actual take on the mourner's bench. What amazes me more is what the altar call has become and the fact that many churches embrace the altar call as though it is required by a biblical mandate. My concern is the walk-the-isle, easy-believeism mentality that feeds carnal Christianity, spurious faith... false assurance of salvation.

Thank you Daniel, for challenging me to do this research about Finney. Very interesting.

Lisa,

I am not a fan of Finney, but the old saint who mentored me for years was a great admirer of Finney. I never did share that admiration, and often when he would quote Finney, I would do a mental eye rolling to myself.

One day, one of the youth I was mentoring discovered that the old pastor "liked Finney" and in his zeal wrote a rather ...challenging letter to Him demanding that he answer for daring to quote from Finney.

The reply that came back was so filled with grace, it probably spoke more to this fellow than any other reply could have. In it the old pastor never once apologized for Finney, and reminded the the youth group kid that Finney however wrong in many things, was in all likelihood still a believer, and as such given by God to the church for its edification, and even if he were bold to shoot down the man, he ought to tremble before the idea of shooting down one whom God gave to the church.

I read the letter and was quite moved by it, for I was one who was quick to examine what was said of the man, and pass judgment and condemn him. Yet I don't doubt that there will be more sinners in heaven who repented and came to Christ through Finney's ministry (off as it was) than will come through my own, or through most of his detractors.

Here is Finney, in his own words describing saving faith:

Since the Bible uniformly represents saving or evangelical faith as a virtue, we know that it must be a phenomenon of will. It is an efficient state of mind, and therefore it must consist in the embracing of the truth by the heart or will. It is the will's closing in with the truths of the gospel. It is the soul's act of yielding itself up, or committing itself to the truths of the evangelical system. It is a trusting in Christ, a committing the soul and the whole being to him, in his various offices and relations to men. It is a confiding in him, and in what is revealed of him, in his word and providence, and by his Spirit.

The same word that is so often rendered faith in the New Testament is also rendered commit; as in John ii. 24, "But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men." Luke xvi. 11, "If, therefore, ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?" In these passages the word rendered commit is the same word as that which is rendered faith. It is a confiding in God and in Christ, as revealed in the Bible and in reason. It is a receiving of the testimony of God concerning himself, and concerning all things of which he has spoken. It is a receiving of Christ for just what he is represented to be in his gospel, and an unqualified surrender of the will, and of the whole being to him. (see here.

I haven't read too deeply into Finney's theology, trusting that it is likely as bad as they say - but I believe that he probably developed his theology over many years, and likely in response to what was going on around him.

When I began to walk with the Lord I was stunned by how few believers actually walked the walk. I began to think that unless you were "just like me" you probably weren't saved. Had I not had access to sound teaching on the internet and in books, I may well have began to develop my own explanation for the phenomenon - and instead of looking to scripture to define for me what the gospel was - I would try and articulate the gospel in such a way that it was only valid if it produced what I regarded to be an appropriate standard of spiritual activity. I say, I can see myself doing something dumb like that - and so maybe that is why I am willing to extend grace even to Finney.

Anyway, I understand you were focusing on that easy-believe-ism mentality that is so prevalent in the "fill them up however you can" kind of church growth schemes we see today. I didn't mean to hijack the meta into a discussion about Finney's merits (or lack thereof). But just offered that because I see it everywhere and know that it isn't as accurate as it can be.

I do not think at all that you hijacked this post. I learned something new today that stripped me of what I had been taught and is being taught on many websites. Even though it was about Finney and not about Scripture, it goes to show, to me at least, the need to be teachable... but, of course, not tossable. I am not one to have the ability to discern whether Finney was a true believer, or not. Ultimately, who but God is? Though I do find myself seriously questioning him regarding his very shaky version of systematic theology.
My father has often said to me that it is better to err on the side of mercy. I see that in you here. I sincerely hope I do not come across as unmerciful. I so long to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord.
I found the video I embedded into this post when I did a video search on this topic and I really like what it has to say. I believe it is well -rounded in its approach with a good balance between truth and mercy. I especially liked the conclusive remarks in the video.

Good video. Good teaching on altar calls.
They do more harm than not in my thinking.

I have seen many false professions, or confessions.

And yet god's grace is so gracious, and He surely saves within Benny Hinn altar calls. Finny, to many, was not a Christian. I know RC Sproul says plainly that this man wasn't a Christian.
I don't know.
I know he taught our righteousness was our own. And the teaching of Christ's righteousness was false.

Good post. Good video.

the thing about sinners coming to Christ, is that i long for people, all people to repent and believe. Especially my family.
I know without a doubt God will show mercy to whom He wills. And he has His chosen. But when I pray for the lost, and cry out to God, i am emotionally torn, and I believe the Father longs to save His lost children, and there's this twofold mystery about God. he has already saved all His elect, and yet he earnestly seeks His sons and daughters, and loves to see them have a change of heart, and come bow before Him for forgiveness, and he then falls on His child, and calls for His angels to rejoice and shout for joy, for another child has come to repentance, and has come home!