THE OCCULT - What does the Bible say about it?

Today, many people dabble in the mystical, occultic arts. Is there anything wrong with being involved in these practices? Yes, the Bible takes a clear position on this subject, strongly denouncing these practices. God created us and therefore owns us. He has a right to set the rules for our lives. God's Word indicates that these practices are part of Satan's strategy of evil tricks and deception, designed to lead us astray. Satan and his demons are real beings set on our destruction. Christians are warned to "put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:11-12).




Concerning occult practices, the Israelites were told:

“When you come into the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire [an ancient occult practice], or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination [detestable] to the LORD…”
-Deuteronomy 18:9-12a

Astrology (predictions by the planets or moon; horoscopes; sometimes referred to as “observing times” in the Old Testament)

Although the Bible does go into great detail about astrology, it certainly makes its position clear. We should never trust in astrological beliefs or predictions. Astrology is an ancient, heathen practice that leads to disaster. Our lives are not determined by the stars or movement of planets. The Bible warns against the false predictions of astrology (Jeremiah 10:2; 27:9-10; Daniel 2:1-4; 4:7; 5:7-9) and repeatedly condemns the associated practice of worshipping the sun, moon and stars (or “deities or demons associated with them”) (Deuteronomy 4:19; 17:2-5; 2 Kings 21:3, 5; Zephaniah 1:5; Job 31:26-28; Jeremiah 8:1-2).

In Isaiah, God sarcastically rebukes Israel for practicing astrology,

…For you have trusted in your wickedness… Therefore evil shall come upon you… trouble shall fall upon you… Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, And the monthly prognosticators stand up and save you from what shall come upon you. Behold, they shall be as stubble, The fire shall burn them; They shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame…
-Isaiah 47:10-14a

Magic, Spells, Enchantments, Charming, Sorcery, Wizardry, Witchcraft

Research has shown that occult magic is often fraudulent and deceitful illusion - counterfeit miracles. Many books have been written on this subject. In some instances, occult magic or divination are a manifestation of demonic powers or the result of demon possession (Acts 16:16). Of course, the power of Satan and his demons is extremely limited compared to God's power.

Those who follow the path of the magic arts are on the wrong path - a road that leads away from God, not toward Him. In one way or another, the end will be disaster. The evil Queen Jezebel practiced witchcraft (2 Kings 9:22) bringing catastrophe on herself and all Israel. Over and over, God denounces those who “conjure spells” (NKJV) and those who practice witchcraft and sorcery. The Bible says that anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord (Deuteronomy 18:10-12; 2 Kings 21:6; Micah 5:12; Isaiah 47:12; Ezekiel 13:18, 20; Acts 8:11-24; Leviticus 20:27; Exodus 7:11; Revelation 9:21; 22:15).

God warns of the ultimate punishment. Revelation 21:8 says of "…those who practice magic arts …their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur… the second death" (NIV). Those who practice witchcraft (sorcery) will not inherit the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:20-21). These practices are anti-God and are in rebellion against Him.

Many of citizens of ancient Ephesus practiced the magic arts. Those who became Christians realized the foolish error of their former lives and burned their expensive books of magic as the trash they were (Acts 19:19).

The Bible tells how the apostle Paul once dealt with one of these deceivers, a sorcerer and false prophet who led people astray. "Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him and said, O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord? And now, indeed, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a time.' And immediately a dark mist fell on him, and he went around seeking someone to lead him by the hand" (Acts 13:9-11).
Divination, Fortune-telling, Mediums, Spiritism, Necromancy, Familiar Spirits, Wizardry, Seances, Channeling, Clairvoyance, Spirit-guides

The Bible strongly warns people not to consult mediums and spiritists for the truth, but to inquire of God (Isaiah 8:19). Clearly, if those who practiced these arts have any power (beyond being great deceivers), it is not a gift from God (as some falsely claim). The Bible condemns and forbids these practices several times (Deuteronomy 18:9-14; Isaiah 44:25; Jeremiah 27:9; 2 Kings 21:6; 23:24). Divination and Spiritism were despised practices of the heathens (Ezekiel 21:21; Isaiah 19:3; 1 Samuel 28). Scripture says that one of the reasons King Saul died was "because he consulted a medium for guidance" rather than God (1 Chronicles 10:13-14).

The Bible provides examples showing the folly and failures of those who claimed the ability to predict the future based on their own powers or those of spirits (Daniel 2:27, etc.). God calls the word of diviners “nonsense,” “lies” and “deception” for foolish people (Ezekiel 13:8; Jeremiah 14:14; Isaiah 44:25). God said, "Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing!" (Ezekiel 13:3). If an Israelite lived the deceitful practice of being a medium, it was punishable by death (Leviticus 20:27). The presence of a medium or spiritist among God's people of Israel was considered a defilement (Leviticus 19:31). All these practices take people further from their Creator, the true and living God.
Following omens or signs

We are not to look to omens or “signs” to direct our lives. The Bible reprimands people for doing this. It is an “abomination” and foolishness (Deuteronomy 18:10-12). Look to God and His instructions for life as provided in the Bible. To do otherwise is to foolishly deceive yourself, or allow Satan and others to deceive you.


RECOMMENDED RESOURCES

* Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, The Occult: The Authority of the Believer Over the Powers of Darkness (San Bernardino, California: Here's Life Publishers, 1992), 249 pp.
* Danny Korem and Paul Meier, The Fakers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1980).

Read More...

What is the Occult?

The word “occult” is generally associated with secret knowledge and practices dealing with the supernatural or “psychic” phenomena often for the purpose of obtaining personal power. Some occult practices rely on demons or “spirits” to achieve their goals. Occultism is rapidly increasing throughout the world. There are now thousands of publishers of occultic books and magazines (not to mention Web sites). Interest in the occult has been promoted by the New Age movement, the rise of neo-paganism, movies and even some heavy-metal rock bands.

Please understand that the terms “occult” and “cult” refer to completely different things—although there can be crossover in some specific instances. That is, some cults have occultic practices.


The following practices are considered to be occultic:
(partial list, in alphabetical order)
Alchemy
Animism
Astrology
Automatic speaking (through spirits)
Automatic writing (spirit-guided)
Cabalistic knowledge
Calling up the dead
Candomble
Celtics (the religion, not the Celtic “race”)
Channeling
Chaos Magic
Chiromancy
Clairaudience
Clairvoyance
Crystalmancy
Demon worship and consultation
Discordianism
Divination
Eckankar
Enchantments
Fetishism
Fortune telling
Freemasonry
Glass looking
Gnostic wisdom
Hermetic Traditions
Horoscopes
Hydromancy
I Ching
Illuminated organizations
Illuminati
Incantations
Kabbalah
Knights Templar
La Regla Lucumi
Lukumi
Lycanthropy
Macumba
Magic, magick (magical arts)
Mediums
Mirror gazing
Necromancy
Neo-paganism
Omens
Oracles
Ordo Templi Orientis
Ouija boards
Paganism
Palmistry
Prognostication
Psychometry
Qabalah
Quimbanda
Radiestesia
Rosicrucianism
Runes
Santeria
Satanism
Scrying
Secret societies
Sevi Lwa
Shamanism
Soothsaying
Sorcery
Spells (casting, conjuring)
Spirit-guides
Spiritists
Spiritualism
Tarot cards
Tea cup reading
Thelemite
Umbanda
Vedic astrology
Vodun (Voodoo)
White witchcraft
Wicca
Witchcraft
Wizardy

Read More...

Are you a GOOD person ?

o you consider yourself to be a good person? Most people do. However, most of us differ on the definition of “good.” The Bible says that God is good, and the Ten Commandments are His standard of goodness. So, we will look at God’s Law. With a tender conscience, ask yourself if you have obeyed the following:

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
(Have you always loved God above all else?)
2. You shall not make yourself an idol.
(Have you made a god in your mind that you’re more comfortable with, a god to suit yourself?)
3. You shall not take God’s name in vain.
(Have you ever used God’s holy Name as a cuss word?)
4. Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and mother.
6. You shall not murder.
(God considers hatred to be as murder.)


7. You shall not commit adultery.
(“Whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart” — Matthew 5:27-28; this also includes sex before marriage).
8. You shall not steal.
(Have you ever stolen anything? — the value of the item is irrelevant.)
9. You shall not lie.
(Have you lied even once? Including answering these questions.)
10. You shall not covet.
(Have you ever jealously desired what belongs to others?)
The Bible says that God will punish all murderers, rapists, thieves, liars, adulterers, etc. He will even judge our words and thoughts. On Judgment Day, will you be found to be guilty or innocent of breaking His commandments?
Perhaps you think that God is good, and will therefore overlook your sins. But it is His goodness that will make sure that murderers, rapists, thieves, liars, etc. receive justice. He would be a corrupt Judge if He turned a blind eye to injustice.
Have you kept the Commandments?
The Bible says that the Law is perfect. It commands you to be perfect (Matthew 5:48). Are you perfect (in thought, word, and deed)? Will you make it to Heaven?
You may say that you are still good, but God says you’re not (see Psalm 14:2-3). So one of you is lying, and the Scriptures tell us that it is impossible for God to lie.
Remember that all liars will be cast into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 21:8). God’s Law demands justice, and the penalty for sinning against Him is death and Hell. Listen carefully, if you want to live.
God Himself made a way where His justice and His goodness could meet. We broke the Law, but He became a man to pay the fine. Jesus suffered and died on the cross to satisfy the Law. God can forgive us and grant us the gift of everlasting life!
But you may still think that you can (from now on) keep the Ten Commandments. But isn’t it true that the best of us have lied, stolen, lusted, hated, failed to love God above all else, and failed to love our neighbor as ourselves?
How can we then, live a “good” life if we have already sinned against God? At best we are reformed liars and thieves … but still Lawbreakers.
Think of it this way…
Would you sell one of your eyes for a million dollars? Would you sell both for $50 million? I’m sure you wouldn’t. Your eyes are priceless, yet they are merely the windows of your soul. What then must your life (soul) be worth?
With these thoughts in mind, what would be a fair price to pay for everlasting life? It is utterly without price. Yet, if we trust in our own goodness to enter Heaven, we are saying to God, “I should enter Heaven because I have done good - I have earned my way in.”
Imagine if you wanted to give me a brand new (very expensive) car, but I said, “I can’t take it! I feel embarrassed receiving such a gift … here’s 10 cents for it.” I’m sure you would be very insulted by such a pathetic offer of payment. Besides, if I pay for it, it is no longer a gift, it’s a purchase … it’s mine by right.
When we talk of entering Heaven by being good, by trying to keep the Ten Commandments, etc., we are tossing God 10 cents of “self-righteousness,” which is a terrible insult to Him, in the light of His sacrifice. The only thing we can do is humble ourselves, repent of our sins, and receive the gift by trusting Jesus Christ alone.
Almighty God demonstrated how much He loves you when Jesus suffered for you on the cross. If you want to trust in your own goodness, then you are saying His agonizing death on the cross was in vain.
The Bible says, “For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” You cannot earn a gift.
When Jesus said to “believe” on Him, He was saying we should have faith in Him, in the same way you would trust a parachute to save you when you jump from a plane. You don’t merely believe in the parachute - you put it on.
Please don’t “jump” without Jesus. If you die in your sins there is no second chance. God will give you justice, and you will end up in Hell forever. Any troubles you have at present are dwarfed by the trouble you are in with your Creator. His wrath abides upon you (John 3:36).
God doesn’t want you to go to Hell. Neither do you want to go there, so confess your sins to God right now, put your trust in Jesus to save you, and you will pass from death to life.
Then read the Bible daily and obey what you read. (See John 14:21). Your obedience to God is the proof of your love. Have faith in God, He will never fail you.
Say something like this to God:
“Dear God, today I turn away from all of my sins (name them). This day I put my trust in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. He is the only way for me to be saved. He is ‘The way, the truth, and the life.’ Please forgive me, change my heart, and grant me Your gift of everlasting life. In Jesus’ name I pray. Amen.”

Author: Ray Comfort. Text copyright, 2003, Living Waters Publications. The text above is available as a tract booklet from Living Waters Publications.



Read More...

How can one God be three persons?

The doctrine of the Trinity — that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are each equally and eternally the one true God — is admittedly difficult to comprehend, and yet is the very foundation of Christian truth. Although skeptics may ridicule it as a mathematical impossibility, it is nevertheless a basic doctrine of Scripture as well as profoundly realistic in both universal experience and in the scientific understanding of the cosmos.

Both Old and New Testaments teach the Unity and the Trinity of the Godhead. The idea that there is only one God, who created all things, is repeatedly emphasized in such Scriptures as Isaiah 45:18:

“For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; …I am the Lord; and there is none else.”


A New Testament example is James 2:19:

“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well; the devils also believe, and tremble.”

The three persons of the Godhead are, at the same time, noted in such Scriptures as Isaiah 48:16:

“I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me.”

The speaker in this verse is obviously God, and yet He says He has been sent both by The Lord God (that is, the Father) and by His Spirit (that is, the Holy Spirit).

The New Testament doctrine of the Trinity is evident in such a verse as John 15:26, where the Lord Jesus said:

“But when the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from the Father, He shall testify of me.”

Then there is the baptismal formula:

“baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19).

One name (God) — yet three names!

JESUS — That Jesus, as the only-begotten Son of God, actually claimed to be God, equal with the Father, is clear from numerous Scriptures. For example, He said:

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8).

HOLY SPIRIT — Some cults falsely teach that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal divine influence of some kind, but the Bible teaches that He is a real person, just as are the Father and the Son. Jesus said:

“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will show you things to come” (John 16:13).

TRI-UNITY — The teaching of the Bible concerning the Trinity might be summarized thus. God is a Tri-unity, with each Person of the Godhead equally and fully and eternally God. Each is necessary, and each is distinct, and yet all are one. The three Persons appear in a logical, causal order. The Father is the unseen, omnipresent Source of all being, revealed in and by the Son, experienced in and by the Holy Spirit. The Son proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit from the Son. With reference to God's creation, the Father is the Thought behind it, the Son is the Word calling it forth, and the Spirit is the Deed making it a reality.

We “see” God and His great salvation in the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, then “experience” their reality by faith, through the indwelling presence of His Holy Spirit.

Though these relationships seem paradoxical, and to some completely impossible, they are profoundly realistic, and their truth is ingrained deep in man's nature. Thus, men have always sensed first the truth that God must be “out there,” everywhere present and the First Cause of all things, but they have corrupted this intuitive knowledge of the Father into pantheism and ultimately into naturalism.

Similarly, men have always felt the need to “see” God in terms of their own experience and understanding, but this knowledge that God must reveal Himself has been distorted into polytheism and idolatry. Men have thus continually erected “models” of God, sometimes in the form of graven images, sometimes even in the form of philosophical systems purporting to represent ultimate reality.

Finally, men have always known that they should be able to have communion with their Creator and to experience His presence “within.” But this deep intuition of the Holy Spirit has been corrupted into various forms of false mysticism and fanaticism, and even into spiritism and demonism. Thus, the truth of God's tri-unity is ingrained in man's very nature, but he has often distorted it and substituted a false god in its place.

Read More...

Are we living in a moral Stone Age?

In the late 1960s, a group of hippies living in the Haight-Ashbury District of San Francisco decided that hygiene was a middle class hang-up that they could best do without. So, they decided to live without it. For example, baths and showers, while not actually banned, were frowned upon. The essayist and novelist Tom Wolfe was intrigued by these hippies who, he said "sought nothing less than to sweep aside all codes and restraints of the past and start out from zero."

Before long, the hippies' aversion to modern hygiene had consequences that were as unpleasant as they were unforeseen. Wolfe describes them: "At the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic there were doctors who were treating diseases that had disappeared so long ago they had never even picked up Latin names, such as the mange, the grunge, the itch, the twitch, the thrush, the scroff, the rot." The itching and the manginess eventually began to vex the hippies, leading them to seek help from the


local free clinics. Step by step, they had to rediscover for themselves the rudiments of modern hygiene. Wolfe refers to this as the “Great Relearning.”

The Great Relearning is what has to happen whenever earnest reformers extirpate too much. When, “starting from zero,” they jettison basic social practices and institutions, abandon common routines, defy common sense, reason, conventional wisdom--and, sometimes sanity itself.

We saw this with the most politically extreme experiments of our century: Marxism, Maoism, and fascism. Each movement had its share of zealots and social engineers who believed in “starting from zero.” They had faith in a new order and ruthlessly cast aside traditional arrangements. Among the unforeseen consequences were mass suffering and genocide.

Russians and Eastern Europeans are just beginning their own “Great Relearning.” They now realize, to their dismay, that starting from zero is a calamity and that the structural damage wrought by the political zealots has handicapped their societies for decades to come. They are also learning that it is far easier to tear apart a social fabric than it is to piece it together again.

America, too, has had its share of revolutionary developments--not so much political as moral. We are living through a great experiment in “moral deregulation,” an experiment who first principle seems to be: "Conventional morality is oppressive." What is right is what works for us. We question everything. We causally, even gleefully, throw out old-fashioned customs and practices. Oscar Wilde once said, "I can resist everything except temptation." Many in the Sixties generation made succumbing to temptation and license their philosophy of life.

We now jokingly call looters "non-traditional shoppers." Killers are described as “morally challenged”--again jokingly, but the truth behind the jokes is that moral deregulation is the order of the day. We poke fun at our own society for its lack of moral clarity. In our own way, we are as down and out as those poor hippies knocking at the door of the free clinic.
We need our own Great Relearning.

Here, I am going to propose a few ideas on how we might carry out this relearning. I am going to propose something that could be called “moral conservationism.” It is based on this premise:

We are born into a moral environment just as we are born into a natural environment. Just as there are basic environmental necessities, like clean air, safe food, fresh water, there are basic moral necessities. What is a society without civility, honesty, consideration, self-discipline? Without a population educated to be civil, considerate, and respectful of one another, what will we end up with? Not much. For as long as philosophers and theologians have written about ethics, they have stressed the moral basics. We live in a moral environment. We must respect and protect it. We must acquaint our children with it. We must make them aware it is precious and fragile.

I have suggestions for specific reforms. They are far from revolutionary, and indeed some are pretty obvious. They are “common sense,” but unfortunately, we live in an age when common sense is becoming increasingly hard to come by.

We must encourage and honor institutions that accept the responsibility of providing a classical moral education for their students. The last few decades of the twentieth century have seen an erosion of knowledge and a steady increase in moral relativism. This partly due to the diffidence of many teachers who are confused by all the talk about pluralism. Such teachers actually believe that it is wrong to “indoctrinate” our children in our own culture and moral tradition.

Of course, there are pressing moral issues around which there is no consensus; as a modern pluralistic society we are arguing about all sorts of things. This is understandable. Moral dilemmas arise in every generation.

But, long ago, we achieved consensus on many basic moral questions. Cheating, cowardice, and cruelty are wrong. As one pundit put it, "The Ten Commandments are not the Ten Highly Tentative Suggestions."

[For further information on the practical importance of teaching the Ten Commandments in society, see: Does American government need the Ten Commandments anymore? and Does character matter in political leaders?.]

Author: Christina Hoff Sommers, professor of philosophy at Clark University, and W. H. Brady Fellow at American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C. This answer was excerpted from her October 1997 speech at the Shavano Institute for National Leadership. Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS, the monthly journal of Hillsdale College.

Provided by: Eden Communications.

Photos provided by: Eden Communications. Copyrighted. All rights reserved.

Read More...

I Gave a Party, but No One Came!

Key Verse:

Matthew 22:14. “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”

Main Idea:
In order to go to heaven and take part in Jesus’ wedding feast, we must accept His invitation and dress ourselves in His righteousness.

Introduction:
Divide the class into groups of about five students, with everyone in a group being of the same gender. Ask the boys to pretend they are helping their big brother plan his wedding. They are to decide what the groomsmen are to wear, where the wedding will be held, and the menu for the rehearsal dinner. They can be as extravagant as they want because big brother just inherited $1,000,000.


Ask the groups of girls to pretend they are helping their big sister plan her wedding. They are to decide what the bridesmaids will wear, how to decorate the church, where the reception will be and what food will be served. They can be as extravagant as they want because the bride’s rich uncle is paying all the bills.

Allow about five to ten minutes for the groups to plan and then have fun as they share what they would do.

After each group has reported, ask questions like these to lead into the Bible study.
1. Why do we have the custom of making a wedding really nice?
2. What if the bride and groom made really elaborate and expensive preparations for their wedding and no one showed up except the minister who was to marry them?
3. What do you think they would do with all the decorations, flowers and food that had been prepared for the wedding and reception?

Bible Study:
Say “Jesus told a story in which a father experienced just what we’ve been talking about. Let’s see what he did.” Read Matthew 22:1-14 aloud from a modern translation like The Message or The New Living Translation. Put some dramatic interpretation into it so it seems like a short story or news report.

Use the same group divisions as above. Give each group one of the three assignments below. Ask the class to work together to answer the questions and prepare to share their answers with the whole group in about fifteen minutes.

Assignment 1: How would you describe the people on the first guest list? Think about these questions.
1. What kind of people do you suppose were on the king’s original guest list? Who would a powerful, rich man invite to his son’s wedding today?
2. When would you guess the initial invitation was given?
3. Do you consider the excuses given for not attending valid or not? Why?
4. What could have motivated those who abused and killed the king’s servants?

Assignment 2: Why do you think the king extended his second invitation to people on the streets? Think about these questions.
1. Did they have an established relationship with the family?
2. Did they have anything to offer the king or his son?
3. Did they deserve to be invited?
4. So, why did the king invite them?

Assignment 3: Describe the king’s reactions to various people in the story. Answer these questions.
1. How did he respond to those who refused his invitation?
2. How did he respond to those who mistreated his servants?
3. How did he respond to the man who entered the wedding feast without the proper clothing?

Application:
After all the groups have reported, identify the characters in the story in order to determine its spiritual meaning.
1. Who do the king and his son represent?
2. Who do the people on the original guest list represent?
3. Who do the guests brought in from the streets represent?
4. What does this story teach us about God’s invitation to experience His grace and hospitality through all of eternity?

Ask students to fill the blanks in these responses:
1. Those who reject His invitation are ___________________________.
2. Those who accept His invitation are clothed in righteousness and allowed to enjoy the pleasures of heaven.


Encourage the students in the class to consider which group they are in. Emphasize that it in order to go to heaven and take part in Jesus’ wedding feast, we must accept His invitation and dress ourselves in His righteousness.


Read More...

Peers Can Only Pressure You if You Let Them

Peers Can Only Pressure You if You Let Them

Scripture Passage: Mark 6:17-29

Key Verse: Mark 6:26b. “Because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he did not want to refuse her.”

Goals and Objectives:
• To determine what makes peer pressure influence us so strongly.
• To develop a strategy to decrease the influence of our peers over our decisions.

Main Idea: Through forethought and the power of the Holy Spirit, a believer can develop strategies to de-fuse the power of peer pressure.


Materials Needed:
• Copies of the student handout

Background:
Herod Antipas was the son of the Idumean Herod the Great and a Samaritan woman. He ruled as tetrach of Galilee from 4 BC until 39 AD. Herod, as revealed in Scripture and secular writings of the time, was immoral, superstitious, and tricky as a fox. He rejected his first wife in order to seduce and win the wife of his half-brother Philip. John the Baptist confronted him with his sin and was arrested as a result. Later, when Pilate was looking for a way out of the dilemma of the Jews asking for Jesus to be crucified, he sent Him to Herod. When Jesus refused to entertain him, Herod allowed the soldiers under his command to violently mistreat and ridicule him. Then, lacking the courage to make a decision, he sent the Lord back to Pilate (Luke 23:8-12).

Warm up:
Tell the story below, or a similar situation you have observed or experienced, to illustrate peer pressure.
Imagine if you will, that you are an adult at a wedding reception. It is crowded, but you find a table with a few friends from your church. There are some Sunday school teachers, and some deacons among the group. In your church, not very many people drink alcoholic beverages in public because of the Scripture that says, “Determine this, not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way” (Romans 14:13).
A waiter comes by to pour servings of champagne for the traditional toasts to the bride and groom. The first person declines to accept any, saying that she doesn’t like it. The second person accepts a full serving. The third person says, “I’ll take just a tiny bit.” The fourth, fifth and sixth persons accept small amounts as well.

Get the students thinking by discussing briefly the following questions or ones like them.
• What are they dynamics of this situation?
• Why did the final four take only a very small portion?
• Who do you think was the first person to be influenced by peer pressure? Explain your answer.

Make the transition to the lesson by saying, “We are all influenced by peer pressure. Sometimes we are influenced to do things that are good, and sometimes the choices are both all right. Other times, though, we may be pressured into doing something that we really don’t want to do, or that we consider to be wrong. Let’s look at an incident of peer pressure in the Scripture and see if we can determine what motivated the character and how he might have chosen differently if he had been prepared to stand against the influence of the group he was with.

I. Observe what led to Herod’s foolish and costly decision. Read Mark 6:17-29 with feeling and drama. You might even assign parts and read the passage as a dramatic dialogue with a narrator filling in the details not contained in conversations. After reading and explaining the background of the story as needed for understanding what happened, ask the following question. What elements of the story make this an example of peer pressure?
A. Verses 21 and 26. (Herod had influential and important people as his guests. This implies that he was concerned to impress them.)
B. Verses 22 and 23. (Herod made a statement without thinking of the consequences of what he promised. He put himself into a trap because of his pride.)
C. What did Herod do as a result of trying to impress his guests? (He killed John the Baptist.)

II. Define the tempting elements present in this story. Re-read verse 20, and note Herod’s opinion of John the Baptist. Then, brainstorm answers to this question. “What made Herod consent to having John killed?” Answers will include variations of the following:
A. Pride. He cared what his guests thought of him.
B. Making a decision and rash statement without thinking. With some forethought, he could have rewarded Herodias’s daughter appropriately without losing face before his guest. In fact, he could have avoided a gross and violent spectacle.

III. Determine if the same elements are present in today’s experiences with peer pressure.

Divide the students into groups of four to six. Assign have each group to develop and act out a short skit that illustrates a peer pressure situation. After each group presents its skit, discuss the following questions in order determine how peer pressure was involved.

A. What kinds of people were present in the situation? Were they people you would want to impress in some way?
B. In the situation you were involved in, was there any pressure to make a decision quickly?
C. To what degree, on a scale of 1 to 5, did you feel pressured by the people or the situation?
D. What would have made the pressure less?
E. Do you think the people in the skit made a good, neutral, or bad decision? Why?

Action Point:
After all the skits have been presented and debriefed using the questions above, help the class determine what they can do that will help them made better decisions when they might be tempted to follow their peers. As you discuss what the people in the skits could have done better, develop some principles like the following that can be used to lessen the influence of peers. Students can record the principles on their handouts.

Principles for making decisions in peer pressure situations:
• In my heart, whom do I want to please most, God or my peers? (Determine to please God and godly people rather than peers. Seeking to please parents and teachers will help young people make wiser choices.)

• What standards will I use to determine what is OK to do and what is not? (Set standards of behavior, attitudes, and actions that is in line with God’s Word. Young people need to know what they stand for or they will fall to whatever situation arises.)

• When should I decide about how to respond in a peer pressure situation? In advance or on the spot? Why? (Think about how to handle situations that may arise before they do. If you have a ready answer to negative peer pressure, you won’t be as likely to cave in because of the pressure of the moment.)

• How can the Holy Spirit living in me help me when I find myself in a situation in which I’m tempted to follow my peers by doing something I know is wrong? (Practice “Help me, God” prayers. The Holy Spirit resides within every believer. One of His functions is to help us determine right from wrong and give us the power to choose correctly (John 14:12; Galatians 5:16, 25).)



Read More...

The Altar Call

Navicella Altar

Is it helpful or harmful?

Introduction
It would be all but impossible to give an accurate description of the modern evangelical church without mention of the invitation system, or the "altar call," as it is called. The altar call is a custom in virtually all Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Wesleyan, Pentecostal, and Charismatic circles. Immediately following the sermon the congregation will sing a hymn during which the preacher calls men and women to walk to the front of the auditorium (the "altar") to make a public decision to "accept Christ." Salvation is offered to all who will but come to the front and take it. Those who come receive the personal attention of a counsellor and are instructed what to pray, and so on. They may be taken to a private "inquiry room," or they may kneel together at the front of the auditorium and speak together softly while the congregation is singing.



I say this is the custom. Indeed, it is all but universal in the evangelical world, and it is considered to be an essential part of evangelism. In fact, those who do not observe the custom are generally held to be "liberal" or at least "unconcerned" about evangelism. The invitation system is an essential feature of the modern evangelical church.

But in the thirteen years that I have been at Word of Life, there has never been such an altar call. I certainly do not want to leave the impression that those who observe the practice are not our friends, indeed, our brothers in Christ. But our refusal to adopt the prevailing custom makes us stand out as different, and as a result we are sometimes asked to explain "why." Given that the custom is such a prevailing one today, the question is a fair one. Why do we not observe the altar call at Word of Life Baptist Church?

Where Did It Come From?

What is often shocking to many who use the modern invitation system is that the altar call is just that modern. The practice, although widespread, is a very new phenomenon in the Christian church. For nearly nineteen centuries no one had ever heard of the practice. Such well known evangelists as George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, and even John Wesley had never even heard of such a custom. And Charles Spurgeon, that passionate winner of souls par excellence, although well acquainted with the practice, firmly refused to adopt it and even criticized it severely.

Ironically, "the old fashioned altar call" was unheard of until the nineteenth century. It first came into being by the influence of Charles Finney, the pioneer of modern evangelistic methods. In Finney's crusades (c. 1830) seats at the front were reserved for those who, after the sermon, would respond to the challenge to come to the Lord's side. 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.

The following quote from Finney's Lectures on Revival explains his view well.

* "Preach to him, and at the moment he thinks he is willing to do anything . . . bring him to the test; call on him to do one thing, to make one step that shall identify him with the people of God. . . . If you say to him, "there is the anxious seat, come out and avow your determination to be on the Lord's side," and if he is not willing to do a small thing as that, then he is not willing to do anything for Christ."

The practice was designed to force decisions, to get results. So it did, and with slight variations the new method spread with increasing popularity through Finney and, later, Dwight L. Moody, and finally into virtually all of nineteenth and twentieth century evangelicalism. Peter Cartwright, Sam Jones, R. A. Torrey, Billy Sunday, Bob Jones, Gipsy Smith, Mordacai Ham, John R. Rice, Billy Graham all employed the method with impressive success. The invitation system had come to stay.

In all fairness, it is important to observe that the practice was not born in the apostolic church. It is not found in the ministry of Jesus, His apostles or even the church of the post-apostolic period. We do see Jesus and the apostles "inviting" men and women to Christ and to be saved, but never by means of this particular method. "Invitations" they give, to be sure! But not altar calls. The altar call is "old fashioned" in only a very relative sense. It is old fashioned to us at this end of the twentieth century, but it first arose more than eighteen centuries after Christ.

Now this may not prove that the altar call is wrong, but it surely demonstrates that the non-practice of the altar call is not wrong. If neither Jesus nor His apostles employed the method, and if they never commanded such to be done by the church, then it obviously cannot be wrong to decide against the more modern method. It is not a question of Biblical necessity but of modern custom and convenience. A church which refuses the practice can never be criticized for that refusal; indeed, such a church is at that point more in line with the apostolic church than are those churches which have adopted it.

So then, the altar call is not a matter of Biblical command or precedent. Our Lord does not require it of anyone at any time.

What remains is the question of the propriety of the alter call and the invitation system in general.

Supporting Arguments

As you might expect, advocates of the modern invitation system do offer some arguments in support of the practice. Some of these arguments are of a strictly Biblical nature, and others of a more theological nature. Following is a survey of these arguments with some evaluation of them.

Scriptural Invitations

First, it is often noted that the Scriptures abound with invitations to salvation. Such offers as, "Come to me!" and "Come to me and drink!" and "Be reconciled to God!" are well known, and they deserve to be. These are marvelous offers of life to those who will trust Christ.

It should be noted further that these offers are freely and sincerely given. The apostles did not hesitate to hold out Christ as Savior to all who would listen to their message. "Repent therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out" (Act 3:19). They preached indiscriminately, "Be reconciled to God!" (2Corinthians 5:20) and "testified both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 20:21).

With all this every Christian should not only agree but also rejoice. Christ is the perfectly suited savior for all who will come. Moreover, we should all be careful to learn from this that we also are entrusted with the responsibility to proclaim the good news of God's saving grace to all. This is our part in the divine enterprise of salvation (Matthew 28:19). We can go to any man or woman anywhere and with all sincerity say to them, "Christ is just what you need, and He is all you need. If you will trust Him, you will be saved!" The gospel is to go out to all men everywhere. Jesus saves!

But all this really says nothing about the propriety of the altar call. The altar call is for a man to physically move from one point to another. The gospel call is for a man to flee to Christ. The gospel call is for a man to spiritually identify with Christ through faith, to reach out with the hand of faith and lay hold of Him Who is life. Accordingly, the duty of the evangelist is to command and even plead with men to run to Him for refuge. But this must never be confused with a command to move anywhere physically. Neither Jesus nor His apostles ever instructed anyone that in order to be saved they must "come to the front" or "come for prayer" or "go to the inquiry room" or go to any geographical location. They needn't go anywhere. They were exhorted to go to Christ and nowhere else. Moreover, they are exhorted and assured that going to Him they need go nowhere else.

Everyone acknowledges that Charles Spurgeon emulated well the New Testament practice of evangelism. It would be difficult to find anywhere in the history of the church a man who was more passionate concerning the salvation of the lost and whose preaching brought more into the Kingdom. Yet in his preaching to sinners he refused to direct anyone to an "altar" or to the front of any building. He directed them only to Christ. "Go to your God at once, even where you are now!" he would insist. "Cast yourself on Christ, now, at once, ere you stir an inch!" Spurgeon's practice was according to the Biblical model exactly. He would allow nothing to confuse the direction of the sinner's attention: it must be to Christ, and to Christ alone they are instructed look and go. Nor would they be allowed to entertain any notion that they should go somewhere else first. No! "Ere you stir an inch! Cast yourself on Christ now!"

What a better and more Biblical invitation this is!

Scriptural Exhortations

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. We have already seen that sinners are freely invited to Christ. Here the invitation is only more urgent. There is a command or an entreaty, a begging if you will. And we should learn from this also. It is our responsibility and privilege as evangelists to press on our loved ones and friends the awful urgency of this matter. They must trust Christ or they will perish! And so we may confidently tell them so. We may say so with the authority of Christ and "command" them to believe. We may urge them with all the passion of our hearts, "Run to Christ! You have no where else to go!" Our evangelistic methods are not cold or detached from our emotions. This is a matter of eternal consequence! Run! "I beg you, run! Run now! Go to Christ! There is no other savior!" We are to exhort men and women to faith in Christ.

But as before, this entreaty or command is to flee to Christ. And this says precisely nothing in support of a physical movement from a church pew to an inquiry room. The exhortation has to do with the attention of their souls away from themselves to the Lord Jesus Christ. This has nothing whatever to do with feet or church aisles or "old fashioned saw-dust trails." It has to do with faith.

Scriptural Requirements for Public Professions

In support of the modern invitation system it is often further argued that Scripture plainly requires public profession of faith. This, it is said, is what the invitation system fulfills. Matthew 10:32-33 is the primary verse in view here. Jesus says,

* "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven."

These are important words from our Lord, and they speak well to a glaring weakness in the "Christian" church today. Far too many believe that they can enter the wide and comfortable gate, make a "profession," live as they like, forget Christ, and still make their way to heaven. Not so, Jesus warns. There are demands. Faith must be evident. True saving faith shows itself by loyalty to Christ. He cannot be denied. To deny Him is to remain in sin and take the broad road of convenience to destruction.

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. Whatever else a Christian is, he is one who belongs to Christ; and if his faith is true, this will be evident. "If we deny Him, he will deny us" (2Timothy 2:12).

But as before, this says nothing about the altar call. A man or woman "walking forward" down the aisle of a church building is obviously not what our Lord had in mind. A man's willingness (or unwillingness) to come to the front of a church building says nothing about his willingness to come to Christ. Walking in front of a crowd has nothing at all to do with the conversion process, and we have no right to create such a false category of "public declaration of faith" and thus pronounce the Biblical requirement fulfilled. We have every right indeed, we have divine right to require baptism as this outward and public profession of faith. And we have every right to expect that faith to continue to be evident in life. But the altar call is another matter entirely. It is an artificial, man-made requirement which, by virtue of its human origin, is a matter of no consequence whatever.

"But then how will people be saved?"

After the supporting arguments fail the next question which arises, often in honest and sincere frustration, is, "How then will anyone be saved?" If we cannot invite them to step forward to the "altar," how will they ever make a profession of faith at all?

We should be patient with this frustration. When people are taught that "this" is the way people are saved, it will be confusing at first to think any differently. But only a little thinking will clarify the matter easily. How will they be saved? They will be saved just like every Christian was saved for eighteen-plus centuries before the invitation system was ever heard of. They will be saved just as so many since have been saved. They will look to Christ. They will turn to Him in faith and believe. It may be as they are with a friend who shows them the gospel. It may be while listening to a man preach the gospel. It may be while they are home alone reading the gospel. It may be in any of a great number of circumstances. But all that is required of him is that he look to Christ, trust Him, and he will be saved. We need not and dare not complicate the matter with any other considerations.

John Wesley was a champion of a brand of theology which in our day promotes the invitation system. Such was unheard of in his day, of course, but it would be a fair guess to say that if Wesley were with us today, he would employ the newer methods. His later followers did and still do. At any rate, it is instructive to see how Wesley himself handled the question. He had no such modern convenience to provide any immediate tally of converts. He records in his Journal how he thought about the matter.

* Preached at (such and such a place). Many seemed deeply affected. But God alone knows how deeply.

Whatever we may think of Wesley's theology generally, at this point his thinking was exactly Biblical. His concern was for God to do the work of regeneration. We do the preaching. In fact, we do the pleading. But then we are done. God alone knows the heart, and He is well able to take His Word and affect men deeply with it even long hours or days or perhaps years after the sermon is over. If they will be saved, it will be by looking to Christ whether or not there is an aisle in front of them when they do.

In other words, we all know that God is not restricted to this modern method. He can save any man anywhere at any time. Under-standing this, we all realize at least one reason why the altar call was not instituted by our Lord or His apostles: it is unnecessary.

"What about those who have been saved as a result of an altar call?"

First, we must clarify the question. No one is ever saved "as a result" of an altar call. We are saved only as a result of the gospel. The question, as too often asked, betrays an awful misunderstanding of this most important point. But with that clarification made, we may pass over this question very quickly. If and when God truly saves a man during the time of public invitation, then we all say "Amen!"

But this does not argue in support of the practice. It only argues that at least at times it has witnessed conversions.

"What if a man leaves a service without making a decision?"

This question is faced equally by people on both sides of the discussion. What happens to a man who leaves a service without making a decision? Sadly, they go away as they came in: lost. "He that believes not is condemned already" (John 3:18).

And this observation highlights again the urgency of the matter. We must press them to close with Christ. We must warn them, urge them, plead with them. But our warning and our pleading is in reference to Christ and not an aisle in a church building. We don't want them to think that in order to be saved they must walk an aisle. No! We want them to know that if they look to Christ even while they are seated they will be saved. And so we must tell them that. We must make the message very plain that they must go to Christ, and to go to Him requires no physical movement whatever only a look of the soul. Faith. Trust. Commitment. A reaching out with the hand of the soul to lay hold of that One Who alone can save. Yes, that One Who will save all who come.

Some Dangers in the Invitation System

So far in this discussion we have primarily given our attention to the weaknesses of the arguments that are used in support of the modern altar call. These observations have demonstrated at least that the altar call is unnecessary.

But there is more that must be said, negative though it may be. In all honesty to the Scriptures we must point out that there are dangers involved with this practice which undermine some very important aspects of our faith. We will survey these dangers now.

A Confusion of the Meaning of Faith

First of all and perhaps most importantly is this matter which we have emphasized already. The emphasis on "coming forward to receive Christ" confuses the meaning of faith.

What does it mean to "come to Christ"? We all know that it is a matter of faith. Luther used terminology such as "closing with Christ," and this terminology is exactly Biblical. We are to "look" to Him, "run to Him for refuge," "receive Him" all these Biblical expressions speak of matters of the soul. They speak of faith. And they allow nothing else. "Come here to receive Christ" is an awful confusion of the object and nature of saving faith. Why should we confuse the issue and ask men to come "here" for Christ? Where do we find Biblical justification for such a thing? God is not concerned whether a man walks down an aisle in a church, and neither should we be concerned with it. The only concern is that they look away to Christ and to no one else. And this is precisely where we must direct their attention. "Come, Ye Sinners," we sing. But to where are they to come?

* "Venture on Him, venture wholly!
o Let no other trust intrude!

None but Jesus, none but Jesus, none but Jesus
o Can do helpless sinners good!"

We want none who hear us preach to go away thinking that if they had done something walk an aisle, go to an inquiry room, whatever then they could have been saved. No, we want nothing to confuse or distract from this: they should have and still must look to Christ, the only savior of sinners. This is too important a matter to erect needless obstacles or distractions. They must be directed not to a geographical location in a building. They must be directed to Christ.


A Confusion of Mediators

The modern altar call further runs the risk of confusing the idea of mediatorship. Who is our only mediator? With whom does the sinner need to do business if he is to be saved? Must he talk to you? To me? No, he must do business with Christ, for He alone is the one who can bring us to God. But instructing a man to "come and talk to a personal worker" may well confuse matters. It again distracts from the One of Whom he should be thinking. The sermon itself is the invitation, and it gives direction to Christ and to no one else.

This is our great argument with Roman Catholicism. We need no priest but Christ! There are no other mediators, living or dead. We must go to God only by way of His Son or we will never reach him. This concern, it seems, was uppermost in Spurgeon's criticism of the practice.

* Let me say, very softly and whisperingly, that there are little things among ourselves which must be carefully looked after, or we shall have a leaven of ritualism and priesthood working in our measures of meal. In our revival services, it might be as well to vary our procedure. Sometimes shut up that enquiry-room. I have my fears about that institution if it be used to permanence, and as an inevitable part of the services. It may be a very wise thing to invite persons who are under concern of soul to come apart from the rest of the congregation, and have conversation with godly people; but if you should ever see a notion is fashioning itself that there is something to be got in the private room which is not to be had at once in the assembly, or that God is more at the penitent form than elsewhere, aim a blow at that notion at once. We must not come back by a rapid march to the old ways of altars and confessionals, and have a Romish trumpery restored in a coarser form. If we make men think that conversation with ourselves or with our helpers is essential to their faith in Christ, we are taking the direct line for priestcraft. In the Gospel, the sinner and the Saviour are to come together, with none between. Speak upon this point very clearly, "You, sinner, sitting where you are, believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, shall have eternal life. Do not stop till you pass into an enquiry-room. Do not think it essential to confer with me. Do not suppose that I have the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, or that these godly men and women associated with me can tell you any other Gospel than this. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life."

Spurgeon's words proved prophetic; what he feared has come to pass. Spurgeon himself never adopted the modern method. He only warned against it. For those who desired further help Spurgeon often made himself available on Monday morning; if they were in earnest they could return for further instruction. But his message on Monday was the same as on Sunday: "Look to Christ. You must go to Him." We must be very careful never to confuse this matter.

A Mistrust of the Power of the Holy Spirit and the Preached Word

God has made it plain to us that He saves by means of the Word that is preached. This is the tool in His hand in the saving of sinners. Paul expounds this at some length in 1Corinthians 1. "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (v.17). "For the message of the cross . . . is the power of God" (v.18). "It pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe" (v.21). This message which we preach is "the power of God" in saving sinners (vv.23-24); it is the instrument He uses in bringing men and women to Himself.

Accordingly, the apostle Paul said that he was very careful to allow these considerations to shape his ministry. "I came declaring the message of God about Jesus Christ," he said, "confidently relying on the Holy Spirit powerfully to take that message and make it effective, so that men and women would turn in faith to God and God alone" (vv.1-5).

In other words, Paul was confident that God would save by means of preaching. Preaching is the event in which God works, and we all who are saved know this to be true! Well we know how God has often taken the message and mysteriously but so obviously worked within us to call us back to Himself. The Puritans sometimes referred to preaching as "the chief means of grace." So it is. It is the usual way God works to save. More often publicly but also privately, God works through preaching.

Our problem today is that we really don't believe that. It is after the message that we come to "the most important part of the service." At pastor's seminars instructions are given how to use the invitation time to "sneak up" on people and "get them to come forward" and "make a decision." All of this betrays a woeful mistrust of God's appointed means of grace. Not so with the apostle Paul. He was very careful not to allow anyone to believe merely because he said so; he labored in such a way that their faith would be directed only heavenward (1Corinthians 2:3-5).

God has said that He would save via preaching. He in fact has saved through preaching, and He does save through preaching. We needn't doubt that He can and will. And we needn't invent new means to help Him do what He does so well all by Himself. We are obliged to trust Him to work via the means He has promised to bless.

A Misunderstanding of the Role of the Preacher

The modern invitation system further reveals a misunderstanding of the role of the preacher. The preacher's duty is not to "get decisions." His duty is to proclaim the good news and exhort men and women to go to Christ. This is the means which God uses to save. We preach, and God Himself uses the word preached to "get the decision." (What a woefully inadequate term that is! Saving faith is so much more than a "decision." It is running for rescue!) These roles must never be confused.

Charles Spurgeon often warned against the invitation system, even in his public preaching to the lost. It was not uncommon to hear him warn,

* "God has not appointed salvation by enquiry-rooms. . . . For the most part, a wounded conscience, like a wounded stag, delights to be alone that it may bleed in secret."

The role of the preacher is to exhort men and women to faith in Christ. That is all. And that is enough. God is well able to do everything else.

A Confusion of Profession of Faith with Saving Faith

Saving faith is not a decision that is made, and it is not a mouthing of a certain formula. Even if the formula is recited in prayer, this is not saving faith. Manipulating a person to say go through certain motions and say certain words does him no good whatever. This is not saving faith.

This is dangerous indeed. Can a man really be saved by saying "yes" to a series of questions? Have we done them any favor by allowing them to think so? This is a misunderstanding of saving faith. It is a confusion of professed faith with true saving faith.

This mistake has resulted in the unprecedented number of false converts which this century of evangelism has produced. Decisions and numbers there are, but the "converts" are notoriously unconverted. This is a direct result of confusing decisions with true faith, and it is a blight on the church. As Lewis Sperry Chafer said,

Careful students of evangelism have noticed that where the necessity of public action as a part of conversion has been most emphasized there has been a corresponding increase in the God-dishonoring record of so-called "backsliding"; and this is natural.

It is also inevitable. And it is shameful. And it is harmful, for we have convinced unconverted people that they are safe.

We must not mistake mere professions of faith with true, saving faith. Whether in formal preaching or in private witnessing or in special counseling, our instruction must not be directed to "decisions" but to Christ. We must show our hearers that Christ is the Savior, and we must exhort them to trust Him. This saving look to Christ may well be an event which you witness. But it just as well may be something that occurs later on when the person is alone with God. No matter. We give them the gospel, and we urge them to trust Christ. But there our work ends and God's work begins.

A Creation of False Assurance

Moreover, this modern practice has tended to promote false assurance. We must frankly acknowledge that the modern invitation system has become a kind of third sacrament in the church. We all know so many who "know" they are Christians, because they were baptized as infants or as adults for that matter. The same is true of countless people who have "walked the aisle." They were assured that if they would "come forward" and "make a decision" they could be saved. They came, and there some well-intentioned personal worker convinced them that because they came and answered "yes" to the various questions and then prayed "the sinner's prayer" that now they are saved and no one should ever make them doubt it! Then they left. And they went back to the same old life they had. They made no real public profession of Christ, but because they did as they were instructed they "know" they are safe. This is a needless problem which we have created.

Once more the example of Charles Spurgeon is instructive. In his preaching he would address the sinner, saying, "Go home alone, trusting in Jesus." Then he would enter dialogue with the sinner,

* "I would like to go into the enquiry-room." I dare say you would, but we are not willing to pander to popular superstition. We fear that in those rooms men are warmed into fictitious confidence. Very few of the supposed converts of enquiry-rooms turn out well. Go to your God at once, even where you are now. Cast yourself on Christ, now, at once, ere you stir an inch!"

A Wrong Focus

All must admit that the modern invitation system has resulted in a shift of focus. The focus has shifted from the spiritual to the physical, from the internal to the external. The meeting was "wonderful" because so many people "went forward." We know that "God was working" because so many people responded to the altar call. And in all this our attention is drawn away from God and His work in the human heart to a spot at the front of a building. All this when in reality God may not have been working at all; we really have no way of knowing yet. Or He may well have been at great work accomplishing wonderful things in the hearts and lives of many of His people when no one at all responded to the altar call. We just cannot know yet. Which simply points up the fact that this shift in focus is a misleading one.

A False View of Human Ability

One more item of immense importance is the question of human ability. Can a man be saved by walking an aisle, correctly answering a series of questions, and then praying a prescribed prayer? Put more plainly, does it lie within our own power to "decide" for Christ? Can we be the cause of our own conversion? Can walking an aisle contribute anything to conversion?

This question is crucial, for it will determine the direction of our efforts and of our faith. This issue shaped the Protestant Reformation. The Roman Catholic Erasmus' treatise On the Freedom of the Will (1524) and Luther's On the Bondage of the Will (1525) stated the differences between the two views of salvation: the Roman Catholic believes that man has ability to participate in his own conversion, and the Protestant believes that man has no such ability at all. For Luther, this was foundational. Is salvation free, or is it somehow achieved?

Luther went to the Scriptures to answer the question. Can we effect our own conversion? No, no, a thousand times no! "It is not of him that wills or of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy" (Romans 9:16). "Of His own will he begot us by the word of truth" (James 1:18). "No man knows the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son wills to reveal Him" (Matthew 11:27). "No man can come to me except the Father draw him (John 6:44). "The carnal mind is enmity against God and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be. So then, they that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:7-8). Man "dead" in sins must be brought to life by God before He can do anything at all that is of spiritual good (Ephesians 2:1-5). These who believe unto salvation first were born of God (John 1:12-13). Salvation comes entirely from God's side; it is given freely at His own will (Romans 9:16; James 1:18). Salvation cannot in any way be caused by anything a man can do. We therefore reject any notion of decisional regeneration as strongly as we reject any notion of baptismal regeneration. Salvation is a work of God alone (Jonah 2:9). What men need is rescue, and that rescue only God can give.

All this brings us to the same conclusions we have already reached. 1) Our whole focus in evangelism must be heavenward. We must wait on God to do the saving, for only He can save. 2) The sinner's whole attention must be the same. He must never be allowed to look to himself his will, his efforts, or whatever. In our evangelism, no man needs to hear that he has the ability to do something to effect his own conversion. No. If he is to be saved there must be no feelings of self-reliance remaining. He must know that he is helpless but that there is a Savior from heaven Who has come and Who is mighty to save. He must be directed to Christ Who alone "reveals the Father" (Matthew 11:27). We must never, never, never do or say anything that will confuse this issue. We must direct the sinner to Christ and to Christ alone. With no feelings of self-help reserved he must run in desperation away from himself to Christ. And with all of his props removed and nowhere to direct his faith but God, he has been well evangelized.

In short, salvation is not gained by walking anywhere or by correctly answering a series of good questions or by praying anyone's prescribed formula prayer. Salvation is given freely by God. We must never leave the sinner with the impression that he can in any way manipulate God into granting salvation. We must leave him with the impression that he is desperate and that he can only run to God for mercy.

Summary

There is much more. But these are the most important considera-tions. There are serious dangers in the modern invitation system. It is not a Biblical practice but a relic of nineteenth-century American evangelical tradition. It confuses the nature and object of saving faith. It confuses mere professions of faith with true, saving faith. It fosters false assurance. It distracts thinking away from the workings of God in the inner man. It mistrusts the God-appointed means of preaching and the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Word. It mistakes the role of the preacher. And it rests on an unscriptural view of human ability.

Conclusion

We will not get into questioning the motives of all who practice the altar call, and we will not question the genuineness of the faith of many Christians who trace their conversion experience to a church building. We will only say that the practice is of extra-Biblical origin and that it has many dangers. It offers no help at all but only harm. A return to the New Testament practice is surely best. "Till our latest breath," we will talk of the glories of Christ, His ability and willingness to save, His desirability, and His availability. We will urge all men and women who will listen to run to Him and to Him alone, for He is the great Savior of sinners.

* Come, ye sinners, poor and wretched,
o Weak and wounded, sick, and sore;

Jesus ready stands to save you,
o Full of pity, joined with power!

He is able, He is able, He is able!
o He is willing; doubt no more!

Quote & Unquote

More from Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1882)

"Sometimes we are inclined to think that a very great portion of modern revivalism has been more a curse than a blessing, because it has led thousands to a kind of peace before they have known their misery; restoring the prodigal to the Father's house, and never making him say, 'Father, I have sinned.' How can he be healed who is not sick? or he be satisfied with the bread of life who is not hungry? The old-fashioned sense of sin is despised, and consequently a religion is run up before the foundations are dug out. Everything in this age is shallow. Deep-sea fishing is almost an extinct business so far as men's souls are concerned. The consequence is that men leap into religion, and then leap out again. Unhumbled they come to the church, unhumbled they remained in it, and unhumbled they go from it."

From David Martin Lloyd-Jones (1971)

"Most would agree with my sixth point which is that this method tends to produce a superficial conviction of sin, if any at all. People often respond because they have the impression that by doing so they will receive certain benefits. . . .

"Or take another illustration out of my own experience. In the church where I ministered in South Wales I used to stand at the main door of the church at the close of the service on Sunday night, and shake hands with people as they went out. The incident to which I am referring concerns a man who used to come to our service every Sunday night. He was a tradesman but also a heavy drinker. He got drunk regularly every Saturday night, but he was also regularly seated in the gallery of our church every Sunday night. On the particular night to which I am referring I happened to notice while preaching that this man was obviously being affected. I could see that he was weeping copiously, and I was anxious to know what was happening to him. At the end of the service I went and stood at the door. After a while I saw this man coming, and immediately I was in a real mental conflict. Should I, in view of what I had seen, say a word to him and ask him to make his decision that night, or should I not? Would I be interfering with the work of the Spirit if I did so? Hurriedly I decided that I would not ask him to stay behind, so I just greeted him as usual and he went out. His face revealed that he had been crying copiously, an he could scarcely look at me. The following evening I was walking to the prayer-meeting in the church, and, going over a railway bridge, I saw this same man coming to meet me. He came across the road to me and said, 'You know, doctor, if you had asked me to stay behind last night I would have done so.' 'Well,' I said, 'I am asking you now, come with me now.' 'Oh no,' he replied, 'but if you had asked me last night I would have done so.' 'My dear friend,' I said, 'if what happened to you last night does not last for twenty-four hours I am not interested in it. If you are not as ready to come with me now as you were last night you have not got the right, the true thing. Whatever affected you last night was only temporary and passing, you still do not see your real need of Christ.'

"This is the kind of thing that may happen even when an appeal is not made. But when an appeal is made it is greatly exaggerated and so you get spurious conversions."


Read More...

The Cause & Consequences of National Decline

Amos 1-2

Rather than recite the entire two chapters of Amos, just note these highlights and see for yourself what you think the theme of the passage is.

1:3 – Thus says the LORD: "For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not turn away its punishment, Because they have threshed Gilead with implements of iron.

1:6 – This is what the LORD says: "For three sins of Gaza, even for four, I will not turn back my wrath. Because she took captive whole communities and sold them to Edom,

1:9 – Thus says the LORD: "For three transgressions of Tyre, and for four, I will not turn away its punishment, Because they delivered up the whole captivity to Edom, And did not remember the covenant of brotherhood.


1:11 – Thus says the LORD: "For three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not turn away its punishment, Because he pursued his brother with the sword, And cast off all pity; His anger tore perpetually, And he kept his wrath forever.

1:13 – Thus says the LORD: "For three transgressions of the people of Ammon, and for four, I will not turn away its punishment, Because they ripped open the women with child in Gilead, That they might enlarge their territory.

2:1 – Thus says the LORD: "For three transgressions of Moab, and for four, I will not turn away its punishment, Because he burned the bones of the king of Edom to lime.

2:4 – Thus says the LORD: "For three transgressions of Judah, and for four, I will not turn away its punishment, Because they have despised the law of the LORD, And have not kept His commandments. Their lies lead them astray, Lies which their fathers followed.

2:6 – Thus says the LORD: "For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not turn away its punishment, Because they sell the righteous for silver, And the poor for a pair of sandals.


What's the Point?
You don't have to have four theological degrees to figure out the theme of this passage. It's plain to anyone who reads – The very worst mistake a nation can make is to forget the law of God in its national and political and social life. That nation which forgets God and lives as though His laws do not apply – as though God were not their King or Judge – that nation will eventually learn that whether they have recognized Him or not, God is their God, He is their King and Judge, and they are most certainly answerable to Him.

Here in rapid succession the prophet Amos outlines for us one nation after another which had shaped its policies – both domestic and foreign – as though they could get by with their sins. To each of these nations the prophet announces, "Thus says the Lord, for three transgressions and for four I will not turn away your punishment." That is, "This much I have tolerated, but no more!" They had lived and behaved as though their sin made no difference. And one nation after another the prophet calls into account. Because of their murder, oppression, injustice, dishonesty, immorality, violence, and their various disgraces – in short (2:4), "because they have despised the law of the Lord and have not kept his commandments" – God will "roar," and when he roars mountains will wither, and people will perish (1:2).

This is a common theme in the prophets. Nations as nations are accountable to God. Societies are responsible to keep the law of God. Amos here specifies the kinds of sins which have brought these nations into judgment – murder, aggression, various acts of brutality, trafficking in slaves, violation of international treaty, and even a violation of the standards of common decency such as the desecration of the enemy's dead (2:1). These nations knew better. They were not acquainted with the law of Moses, but still they knew better. And so God holds them accountable. They come under judgment for their violation of His law.

Their mistake was that they forgot that God was their creator and that they were therefore responsible to him. They lived as though God didn't matter, as though His law did not apply to them. In the words of Proverbs 14:34, they forgot that "righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people."

What is significant for us to notice here is the simple observation that God holds us accountable on a national and societal level. His demand of righteousness does not apply to individuals alone. He holds nations responsible for the same and will deal with nations accordingly. This much lies just on the surface of this passage from Amos.

But that God holds nations and societies accountable to His law is a teaching found all throughout the Old Testament. We see it first in Genesis 11 at the tower of Babel. We see it in Genesis 18-19 in Sodom and Gomorrah. We see it in Joshua in Israel's destruction of the Canaanites, at God's command, because "their iniquity was full" (Gen.15:16). We see it in the prophet Jeremiah and his prophecies against Egypt (chapter 46), Philistia (47), Moab (48), Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Arabia, Elam (49), and Babylon (50). We see it in the prophet Isaiah's prophecies against Babylon (chapter 13), Assyria, Philistia (14), Moab (15), Damascus (17), Ethiopia (18), Egypt (19), Jerusalem (20), Babylon, Edom (21), and Tyre (23). We see it in Ezekiel's prophecies against Egypt, Cush, Libya, Put, and Arabia (chapter 30). We see it in Obadiah's prophecies against Edom. We see it in Jonah's prophecies against Nineveh – and we see here also how only by repentance could divine judgment be averted. We see it Micah's prophecies of the destruction of Samaria and Judah. We see it in Nahum's prophecies against Nineveh – evidently a hundred years after Jonah Nineveh had forgotten its lesson! We see it in Habakkuk's prophecies against Judah and Babylon. We see it in Zephaiah's prophecies against Judah, Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Ethiopia, and Assyria. In all of these cases, God deals with the people on a national and societal level. The sin of these nations was pandemic and with societal approval, and as a result God's wrath fell. This is true not only of Israel and Judah, who enjoyed special and written revelation from God, but of all her pagan neighbors also.

Another striking example is found in the prophet Hosea who, although from Judah in the south, prophesied against the northern tribes of Israel. He condemned his neighbors to the north for their dishonesty, murder, drunkenness, and adultery. Their mistake, God says, is that "they do not consider that I remember all their wickedness" (7:2). They thought they could hide among the masses of sinners so as to escape God's notice. They forgot that God deals with sin not only on an individual basis but also on a national level. Because they, as a society, had given themselves over to sin, God would hold the nation accountable. Finally the time would come, God says, when "Israel shall cry to me" but it will be too late. "They have sown to wind; they shall reap a whirlwind" (8:1-7). What is significant here is that Hosea writes his prophecy long after he had delivered it to Israel. Israel now had been destroyed. He writes his prophecy against Israel for the benefit of Judah. And so he ends with the counsel, "Whoever is wise, let him understand these things. Whoever is discerning, let him know them. For the ways of the LORD are right, And the righteous will walk in them, But transgressors will stumble in them" (14:9). That is to say, Judah nation must learn from the experience of Israel. And by extension, every nation must learn from Israel also.


What's the Problem?

Returning to the prophecy of Amos, it is curious that the sins of Judah and of Israel (2:4ff) are seemingly less severe than those of their pagan neighbors, yet because of them Israel and Judah are worthy of destruction. Dishonesty (2:4), sexual immorality (2:7), and the unlawful confiscation of property (2:8) are sins which render a society worthy of divine judgment.

At least part of what makes Israel's and Judah's sin so gravely serious is that they sinned against unprecedented privilege. In 2:9ff God highlights the great things he had done for his people and that they had sinned against such privilege and light. Finally God concludes, "You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities" (Amos 3:2). That is, great privilege abused results in great judgment. (See Isaiah 1 for a similar charge.)

Of further significance is the fact that the prophets of God often also chastise public officials and leaders for their sinfulness of the society. Not infrequently we read the condemnation of the princes, kings, priests, prophets who did not enforce public morality. Governmental leaders are responsible to see that justice is enforced, that the poor and defenseless are not oppressed, and that the decency and morality are ensured. It is admittedly difficult to bring a halt to private sins, but the state can and should enforce morality on a public, societal level. To allow injustice and immorality and indecency in society "pollutes" the land and invites divine judgment (see, Isa.1; Jer.5; 21:12; Lev.26; Isa.24, etc.).

In summary, God holds nations and governments and societies responsible for their sin. It does not matter, ultimately, how much or how little acquaintance with the gospel the nation has had; they knew better than what they had done, and so they are guilty. God is King over pagan Tyre or Egypt or Damascus or Ammon just as certainly as He is King over Judah. Difference in privilege there may be, and so difference in degree of guilt. But He is God over all, and all nations are accountable to Him and answerable to His law. There is no truly atheistic government. Some governments may acknowledge their duty to God, and others may deny it. But all are responsible to Him and will be judged accordingly.

In short, when a society ignores the law of God regarding decency, morality, justice, honesty, etc., it accumulates a debt of offense against God which cannot go forever unpaid. The time will come when God says, "Enough!" And in the words of Hosea, God will "remember the sin" of the nation and bring it all back upon them. The judge of all the earth will finally execute sentence.


How does this affect us?

Now all of this simply must shape the way we view our own nation and society. We want, for the glory of God, righteousness to prevail in our country. But our interest in public morality and decency and honesty is a personal & national interest also. The prosperity and even the survival of our country depends on it. Don't ever doubt it – Greece, Rome, Philistia, Syria, Assyria, Egypt, Babylon – they all come & gone for this reason.

It is in this context we must view all the various issues of our day. When our government takes away the freedoms of its citizens; when the home and family are so constantly under attack; when by legislative or judicial decree marriage and the family are redefined and "alternate lifestyles" are given official sanction; when homosexual perversion can command such enormous political pressure; when the public observation of Christmas is outlawed and instead Earth Day and earth goddesses are promoted; when our babies are allowed partial birth and then slaughtered and thrown in the trash; when the proper roles of men and women are so violently opposed; when leaders not only do not enforce morality but are immoral themselves, and will commit acts of treason for money and have no regard for truth but will say whatever is advantageous for the moment and will twist the meanings of words to own advantage, even perjure selves; when governmental officials do not regard either ethics or law but for personal gain will subvert either; when the party in power is a party of hate, personal destruction, slander, misrepresentation, and when they will further their cause by fomenting unrest & general mayhem; when our government will use "separation of church and state" as means to be rid of God and outlaw public sponsored prayer or the name of Jesus or the display of the 10 commandments but will fund pornographic art; then we have a right to ask, "Do you think that we only will go unpunished?" (Jer. 49:12).

I will not be so bold as to predict just how God will deal with the sinfulness of our nation, nor can I say when. He has all kinds of options, and He is often incredibly patient. But we cannot think that our society can escape what all others could not. Whether America or its governmental leaders acknowledge it or not, God is our God and King and Judge, and to Him we will be brought into account. We hear often today, "You cannot legislate morality!" No? We legislate morality all the time, and well we should! We have laws against prostitution and bigamy. We must legislate morality. America always has, and it always should.

What makes the sinfulness of the American society so especially wicked is that it has the character of apostasy. We saw a sample of this in Amos above. One principle of judgment consistently emphasized in Scripture is that great privilege brings great responsibility. "To whom much is given, much shall be required" (Luke 12:48). (See also Matt.11.)

Along these lines, 2 Chronicles 36:11-21 is significant. Here we have explicit explanation as to why Zedekiah and Israel were taken into captivity. "They mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of Jehovah arose against his people, till there was no remedy" (v.16). God sent prophets, and the people refused them. Finally, God sent judgment.

What is most frightening about all this so regarding our own society is the prelude to judgment that is described in Romans chapter 1. There Paul describes the history of humanity in which people after people who knew better, rebelled. For their rebellion they "treasure up wrath" for themselves (2:5).

But the awful thing that happened before punishment fell is described in those ominous words repeated three times over, "Therefore, God gave them over" (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28). The first step toward national retribution seems to be that God removes restraint and allows a society to have things its own way. Giving them over to themselves they have what they want, and that is precisely the very worst thing that can ever happen to us. What we need is divine restraint from our sinfulness. When God gives us over to ourselves, we are hopelessly lost.

This is frightening, because it seems to describe exactly the condition of our society. How else can we explain the enormous pressure to tolerate homosexuality? How else can we explain the enormous pressure on politicians to condone the hideous practice of partial birth abortion? It should be easy to oppose such a dreadful thing. How else can we explain the societal condoning of leaders who abuse office, lie, perjure selves, and even commit treason? Do we know better? Yes, we do, but it seems that we have been made to lie in the bed which we have made for ourselves.

This principle seems to be in view in Isaiah 3:4 – "I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them." "Babies" ruling over us? We used to have Washingtons and Lincolns. Now we have Bill Clinton. In terms of statesmanship, the difference is staggering.

Or look at this in relation to Amos 8:11 – "I will send a famine on the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." In one sense, we could argue that the gospel is still readily available in our society. But then again, how many churches are there which really expound the gospel? "Famine" is a word that fits very well.

Billy Graham was quoted to have said, "If God does not judge America, he will owe Sodom and Gomorrah an apology." I won't dispute that, but you see the point of Romans 1? It is not a question of if judgment will come – it has already begun. God seems to have given us over to ourselves.

Again, I cannot say what God will do or when. I do not know that judgment will finally come – perhaps God will send revival instead, and turn the hearts of the people back to His law. Further, we can pray with Genesis 18-19 in mind and recall the bargain God offered Abraham – that for 10 righteous people in Sodom He will not send destruction. But we must see our society through this lens – to tolerate sin is to invite divine wrath from God the judge of all the earth. It is a sobering thought.


A Happy Note

There is one happy thought in all this. Frequently when the prophets warn of coming national judgment because of the sins of the society and / or its rulers there is a note of hope – a promise that one day God will send another King to establish God's rule the world over. He will rule in righteousness and with a rod of iron will enforce justice and morality. Indeed, the nations will be made to worship (Zech. 14). And we may be sure that when he comes there will be no homosexual lobby to influence his decisions, no radical feminist to scream for abortion rights. There will be no leaders allowed to twist the meanings of words for personal gain or harass the people. Instead, "the whole earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as waters cover sea." And no enemy will be permitted to stand. And the righteous, who now find themselves in such minority, will then share in his glory and in his rule. And the name of Jesus, which for so long was banned from public use, will then be the name which every tongue will acknowledge to be the name above every name, and every knee will bow before Him in submission to his universal lordship. His rule will be universal, and it will be forever. "Even so, come! Lord Jesus!"

Fred G. Zaspel
Word of Life Baptist Church
Pottsville, PA

Read More...