The Use of the Invitation
Guys,
I'd like to get your opinion on this topic: the use of the public invitation. Allow me to follow Drew's pattern of asking specific questions. I'd like for all to answer this if you are able to do so.
1) Is a public invitation biblical? Please include Scripture to back your point.
2) If a public invitation is indeed biblical, is a public profession (i.e. coming forward) biblical?
3) Lastly, assuming a public invitation is biblical, upon accepting Christ, is baptism necessary?
I'll give my opinions toward the end of the discussion.
posted by Charlie Wallace at 8:44 PM
10 Comments:
1) The principle is in Scripture, but people usually argue against an invitation done poorly, not the principle of an invitation itself
2) Yes
3) Yes
1. Charlie, I looked at Street's arguments in your book and found them somewhat compelling. However, upon a very cursory reading of the sermons in Acts, the only invitations I see are given upon the request of the listeners. For example, in Acts 2:14-36, we have the record of Peter's sermon at Penecost. Nowhere in this passage is an invitation given, only the facts of the Gospel are laid out. But, in following verses, we see the listeners were cut to the heart and ASKED what they should do. Only then does Peter tell them to repent and be baptized.
The question remains, then, is the invitation biblical. The OT seems to point to a call to action. The end of the book of Joshua sure seems to be an invitation to serve God. The NT seems to be ambigious at best. The problem we face is the fact that Luke probably did not record every word of the sermons in Acts. These sermons are more than likely abridged versions. So, my answer is I'm not sure. However, I believe that the Gospel demands some sort of decision.
2. I see no reason why this is biblical. The public profession I see is baptism, which I will address in question three. It seems to me that this "coming forward" serves to confuse people more than help people. "Walking an aisle" is a "golden ticket" into Heaven for many people who haven't got a clue about faith, repentance, and following God.
3. Baptism is the key for public profession. I will begin by saying that baptism, done rightly, is very important for anyone who desires to have a regenerate church (which certain seminary profs argue is the essential Baptist distinctive). Baptism is for those who have faith and have repented. It is the public profession that we have identified ourselves with Christ in his death and reserrection (Romans 6:1-4). Since, therefore, we have identified with Christ himself, we also ought to identify with his body, the church. This, too, is done through baptism.
With that said, I believe that baptism is done, on the whole, very poorly. I would argue that we take a great risk in our willingness to baptize anyone who desires to be baptized, especially young children (4-8 years old). The precursor to baptism must be faith and repentance. Baptism is simply the public symbol of the internal change. Too many people view baptism as having some miraculous power. It is simply and profoundly the public identification with Christ and his church.
Well, I am a little suprised that no one else has answered this post. Charlie, tell us what you think.
I do not see a biblical basis for an actual invitation as part of the worship service. A call to response should be done in the sermon for both believer and non-believer, but making it part of the actual service of worship is something that I do believe Scripture commands. That's just my regulative principle speaking.
Is a public profession of faith necessary and biblical? Absolutely. We are all in agreement here, as Romans 10:9-10 indicates.
Should all people who make a [credible] profession of faith be baptized? Charlie and Michael have been waiting for my take on this. Without debating infant baptism vs. believers only baptism (which I will not do on this post), here is the Presbyterian position: If the person was the child of believers and was baptized as an infant, then baptism is not necessary. However, if one was not baptized as an infant as being introduced to the covenant community as is fitting for a child of a believer, then baptism is absolutely necessary for Scriptural fulfillment.
One quick correction of a typo for my understanding of the invitation: I believe that Scripture does not support an invitation as an element in the worship service. My apologies for the confusion
Drew,
Since baptism isn't the public profession of those who were baptized as an infant, what is it? Would it be coming before the church and confessing Christ or something like that? Just curious.
1) Is a public invitation biblical? Please include Scripture to back your point.
A: A public invitation, or a call to respond to the Gospel is absolutely biblical. Streett makes a good case of responses to God's calling by pointing to Adam, Moses, Joshua, believers with Elijah, believers with Josiah, Zaccheus, the healed leper (luke 17), the Philippian jailer (Acts 16)
Now, I know that Drew would say these did not take place in a worship service. I'm not really sure that makes a difference. I would not guide my use of an invitation based on a principle that regulates worship. I'm not even sure where the regulative principle even comes from. But that's another issue.
However, inviting sinners to respond definitely occurs in Scripture.
2) If a public invitation is indeed biblical, is a public profession (i.e. coming forward) biblical?
Public profession of some type is necessary. Confession is evidence of salvation. However I'm not convinced that one has to come down to the alter in order to be saved. I think the public profession can, and should, be made at baptism.
However, I think there can be made a legitimate biblical case for an immediate public profession. The early church practiced an immediate profession as well. Charles Finney did not make it up. To accept Christ was a serious deal because oftentimes it meant death and alienation from one's family. However, our society is a little different now and I think there is a danger of 'get em and dunk em' without people really knowing what they've done. In the early church, oftentimes the Gospel had never been preached or heard before so an immediate decision was more believable. Nowadays, pretty much every person, even in the South, has heard the Gospel before.
I think an immediate call for faith would be of more use in places where the Gospel has never been preached.
3) Lastly, assuming a public invitation is biblical, upon accepting Christ, is baptism necessary?
Yes. Peter appealed to 'repent and be baptized." The Ethiopian Eunuch desired to be baptized upon responding to Philip's leading. It is interesting to note that most of the people in Acts who were baptized were baptized pretty much immediately. We do not do that. Does that mean we are not being biblical? I think in this day and age the pastor is making sure that the new believer knows what he is doing. But, isn't it the pastor's duty to clearly explain the gospel? Unfortunately, the clear explanation of the gospel is not given every week in most churches.
Michael,
Excellent question. When a person who was baptized as an infant comes to faith in Christ, he or she makes a public profession of faith before the elders. As far as a testimony before the congregation is concerned, that is left up to the discretion of the church. Once a person has made a profession of faith before the elders, they may partake of Communion. Because of their profession of faith, they are received as regenerate believers and are able to partake of the Lord's table as Scripturally commanded.
Oh, and covenant children (children of believers) are introduced to the congregation and announced as having made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. Therefore, the necessity of a public profession is stressed in at least the PCA and the wider Reformed tradition.
Charlie,
The regulative principle is merely the application of "sola scriptura" to the public worship of God.
Great post!
Post a Comment
<< Home