Altar Calls are

[CopticChristian]

Jesus is the only living sacrifice worthy of God’s attention; we are not without Jesus’ death on the Cross. That sacrifice is the one and only eternal sacrifice which God the Father finds acceptable.

Let’s think about this, if Jesus is the sacrificial Lamb, and His death on the cross is the eternal Sacrifice, and the Mass is, as the Catholic Church has always proclaimed, an entering into that one eternal sacrifice on Calvary; how does the Church get it wrong?

A protestant altar call is an act of man, it is nothing more. I’ve been asked before, “Are you saved?” And I asked several of these well meaning people of more than one denomination, “How does one get saved?” I always get the same answer, “just declare before others that Jesus is Lord of your life.” Wow, that’s pretty easy, all I have to do is stand before God and the congregation and declare with my tongue that Jesus Christ is Lord and I accept Him as my Lord and savior.

So it’s my choice to take my action to get saved, what did Jesus have to do?

Back to the topic directly, if I cannot make the sign of the cross gesture when I pray without taking part in a tradition of men, doesn’t it seem ironic and hypocritical that some of the same people who say the SOTC is a tradition of men, origination in the second century, take the tradition of the protestant altar call as not a tradition of men when it originated in the 1800’s? This is amazing!!!

Lapey,

Then of course there is the sinners prayer…copy writ???

sinner-prayer.com/

Copyright © 2002 - 2012 Sinner-Prayer.com, All Rights Reserved.

 

[Lincoln7]

So let me ask you, should us Catholics take a protestant historian’s view over our own Church’s view of the history of the Eucharist and teaching of the Eucharistic celebration and sacrifice of the Mass? This document holds no authority and only a biased opinion of history.

Heb. 13:15Through him [then] let us continually offer God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name.

If you would take this verse by itself you could make the case that the typical current day praise and worship fits here, I guess you could make that case, but it’s a stretch. Put this verse in context of the letter as it is not written to stand alone, none of Sacred Scripture is stand alone doctrine.

This chapter is directly addressing the need to stand “outside” of the Jewish faith, and their traditional sacrifices of animals performed by the priests. Jesus was crucified outside of the city gates and was considered outside of the Jewish faith. So which sacrifice would please God; the sacrifice of the Jews on the altar of the temple, or would it be the once for always offered Eternal Sacrifice of Jesus on the Altar of the Cross?

I think we can all agree it would be the latter. Although we can agree the author of Hebrews is not referring specifically to the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Eucharist, he is referring to the Sacrifice of Jesus which we profess. So just as this verse is not referring to the Eucharist neither is it referring to current day P & W. To say it is minimizes what Jesus has done for us, and deemphasizes the acceptable Sacrifice offered to God the Father to a meager song and dance.

I think people should utilise both… I read Schaff a lot, I also check out new advent. I don’t simply dismiss it as biased, for all history, whoever it’s by and whatever it’s on has a purpose in its writing. That’s why it’s essential to be critical and analytical with them.

According to Barnes this is a peace offering or friendship offering; “But in their peace-offerings, the offerer was regarded as one who stood in the relation of a friend with God, and the oblation was a sign of thankful acknowledgment for favors received. or they were connected with vows in order that further blessings might be obtained, or they were brought voluntarily as a means to continue themselves in the friendship and favor of God; Leviticus 7:11-12; compare Jenning’s Jew. Ant. i.335.” - bible.cc/hebrews/13-15.htm

Of course by Gods grace alone, I fully accept the once for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I don’t think the mass viewed as propitiatory can stand against Hebrews teaching, hence why I’m Protestant, among other things… but we risk taking the thread off topic. We’ve both stated our positions.

Lincs

 

[JustaServant]

Not Biblical…

trinity-baptist-church.com/altar.shtml

This author states that for 1800 years before Finney there were no Altar Calls…probably because there were no groups that did this…comments.

If I am not mistaken, the Methodist had a similar ‘altar call’ nicknamed the ‘mourner’s bench’. It was a place of prayer, not a Billy Graham style ‘make a descision’ for Jesus altar call.

 

[Nicea325]

Not Biblical…

trinity-baptist-church.com/altar.shtml

This author states that for 1800 years before Finney there were no Altar Calls…probably because there were no groups that did this…comments.

Yeah…altar calls and the majority do not even have an altar?

 

[manualman]

If you think about it, there really HAVE been altar calls from the very beginning. As a catholic, I go forward for an altar call every Sunday to receive the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into my very being. Don’t you?

What’s weird to ME is why non-denom protestants call them altar calls in the first place. An altar is a table upon which a holy sacrifice is offered. The non-denom communities I have witnessed don’t believe there is any sacrifice that occurs at their Sunday service, just a remembrance. Most of them have nothing resembling an altar…

 

[Lapey]

I think people should utilise both… I read Schaff a lot, I also check out new advent. I don’t simply dismiss it as biased, for all history, whoever it’s by and whatever it’s on has a purpose in its writing. That’s why it’s essential to be critical and analytical with them.

No I don’t think using both would serve any purpose but to mislead. I believe in and trust in the Lord, He has told us He will send the Advocate to guide His Church. I believe Him. Not Schaff, a man who rejects the Church founded by Jesus.

According to Barnes this is a peace offering or friendship offering; “But in their peace-offerings, the offerer was regarded as one who stood in the relation of a friend with God, and the oblation was a sign of thankful acknowledgment for favors received. or they were connected with vows in order that further blessings might be obtained, or they were brought voluntarily as a means to continue themselves in the friendship and favor of God; Leviticus 7:11-12; compare Jenning’s Jew. Ant. i.335.” - bible.cc/hebrews/13-15.htm

Of course by Gods grace alone, I fully accept the once for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I don’t think the mass viewed as propitiatory can stand against Hebrews teaching, hence why I’m Protestant, among other things… but we risk taking the thread off topic. We’ve both stated our positions.

To take one verse to disprove what the Church has stated as fact since the onset is at best foolish and silly. I repeat once again, all Scripture is in union, not in conflict.

Lincs

 

[Lapey]

If you think about it, there really HAVE been altar calls from the very beginning. As a catholic, I go forward for an altar call every Sunday to receive the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into my very being. Don’t you?

What’s weird to ME is why non-denom protestants call them altar calls in the first place. An altar is a table upon which a holy sacrifice is offered. The non-denom communities I have witnessed don’t believe there is any sacrifice that occurs at their Sunday service, just a remembrance. Most of them have nothing resembling an altar…

AMEN brother!!! When we walk up and say Amen, it means I would give my life to recieve Him who is the Christ! Many generations did exactly that, they gave their lives; they are called Martyrs.

 

[Lincoln7]

I think people should utilise both… I read Schaff a lot, I also check out new advent. I don’t simply dismiss it as biased, for all history, whoever it’s by and whatever it’s on has a purpose in its writing. That’s why it’s essential to be critical and analytical with them.

No I don’t think using both would serve any purpose but to mislead. I believe in and trust in the Lord, He has told us He will send the Advocate to guide His Church. I believe Him. Not Schaff, a man who rejects the Church founded by Jesus.

According to Barnes this is a peace offering or friendship offering; “But in their peace-offerings, the offerer was regarded as one who stood in the relation of a friend with God, and the oblation was a sign of thankful acknowledgment for favors received. or they were connected with vows in order that further blessings might be obtained, or they were brought voluntarily as a means to continue themselves in the friendship and favor of God; Leviticus 7:11-12; compare Jenning’s Jew. Ant. i.335.” - bible.cc/hebrews/13-15.htm

Of course by Gods grace alone, I fully accept the once for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I don’t think the mass viewed as propitiatory can stand against Hebrews teaching, hence why I’m Protestant, among other things… but we risk taking the thread off topic. We’ve both stated our positions.

To take one verse to disprove what the Church has stated as fact since the onset is at best foolish and silly. I repeat once again, all Scripture is in union, not in conflict.

Lincs

I find looking at multiple sources is helpful, understanding the position of those whom I have disagreements with. I find Schaff to be a great read.

It’s not one verse in Hebrews, I find it’s entire argument on the once for all perfecting nature of the Sacrifice of Christ at odds with the current catholic understanding of the mass. Of course yes scripture is in union, we just have differing views on it.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[manualman]

…
It’s not one verse in Hebrews, I find it’s entire argument on the once for all perfecting nature of the Sacrifice of Christ at odds with the current catholic understanding of the mass. Of course yes scripture is in union, we just have differing views on it.

Thanks for quoting it right, anyways. Far too often I hear people say “Once and for all” there, which has American idiom connotations. “Once, for all” means something quite different. Every mass, every place, every time is supernaturally linked to the perfect sacrifice of Calvary. We’re not just remembering, we’re THERE.

I enjoy the SciFi show Stargate SG1 and it occurred to me once that the host is not unlike a gate. At the moment of consecration, something like that time / space wormhole opens and connects to Christ on the cross making the host his body and blood. Not sacrificed AGAIN, but NOW. God exists apart from time, after all…

 

[Lincoln7]

Thanks for quoting it right, anyways. Far too often I hear people say “Once and for all” there, which has American idiom connotations. “Once, for all” means something quite different. Every mass, every place, every time is supernaturally linked to the perfect sacrifice of Calvary. We’re not just remembering, we’re THERE.

I enjoy the SciFi show Stargate SG1 and it occurred to me once that the host is not unlike a gate. At the moment of consecration, something like that time / space wormhole opens and connects to Christ on the cross making the host his body and blood. Not sacrificed AGAIN, but NOW. God exists apart from time, after all…

Hi manualman,
Ha no worries, I find it best to quote scripture accuratley. I get your point, but Heb 10:14 “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” I had this same thread only a few weeks ago, and this is what I kept bringing up. It perfects for all time. If it needs re-presenting in a propitiatory manner for the forgiveness of sin again and again… Where was the perfection for all time? I do think I have hijacked this thread however and should probably pull out…

On alter calls, I have never really looked that far into them, I tend to see faith in Jesus Christ and Baptism as the place in which a public declaration is made, regardless of ones views on baptism. I guess I need to read more on it to give a better answer.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[hn160]

Are you saying that Calvin and Luther both saw the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice?

Regards

Lincs.

Altar Calls for Lutherans is when we go to the altar rail to receive Christ’s true Body and Blood in the bread and wine for the forgiveness of sins. We don’t need altar calls to make a decision for Christ, He already chose us.

 

[Lincoln7]

Altar Calls for Lutherans is when we go to the altar rail to receive Christ’s true Body and Blood in the bread and wine for the forgiveness of sins. We don’t need altar calls to make a decision for Christ, He already chose us.

Indeed, for he has chosen us. We both agree on monergism and unconditional election I think?

 

[hn160]

That’s not true. In worship, WE are living sacrifices. We bring all that we are and have and lay it down before God.

That would be bizarre, but evangelicals don’t believe that.

It seems to me that in Evangelical worship, that it is man centered and the arrow in worship is from man pointing towards Heaven. It is praise bands on a stage, but God does not need our praise. In Lutheran worship, the arrow from Heaven points downward towards man. God comes to us in Absolution and Confession (where the pastor acting in the stead and command of Christ to forgive our sins), in His Word read and preached, and in Holy Communion and when a infant or adult is baptized for the first time.

 

[Lapey]

Hi manualman,
Ha no worries, I find it best to quote scripture accuratley. I get your point, but Heb 10:14 “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” I had this same thread only a few weeks ago, and this is what I kept bringing up. It perfects for all time. If it needs re-presenting in a propitiatory manner for the forgiveness of sin again and again… Where was the perfection for all time? I do think I have hijacked this thread however and should probably pull out…

On alter calls, I have never really looked that far into them, I tend to see faith in Jesus Christ and Baptism as the place in which a public declaration is made, regardless of ones views on baptism. I guess I need to read more on it to give a better answer.

Kind regards

Lincs.

Please try to look deeper than simply showing us how silly we are. The Church has stated since the very inception that Jesus said “DO this in memory of Me.” Not simply to remember the event. The Mass is entering into that once and for all sacrifice. Please look past what mere men do, try to see what God does. In John 6 Jesus says that His teaching if Spirit & Life, it is only through His Spirit which you will be able to see His Life.

The current Church teaching is the teaching since the beginning of the Church, so whomever you read, please be sure of their motives.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi manualman,
Ha no worries, I find it best to quote scripture accuratley. I get your point, but Heb 10:14 “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” I had this same thread only a few weeks ago, and this is what I kept bringing up. It perfects for all time. If it needs re-presenting in a propitiatory manner for the forgiveness of sin again and again… Where was the perfection for all time? I do think I have hijacked this thread however and should probably pull out…

On alter calls, I have never really looked that far into them, I tend to see faith in Jesus Christ and Baptism as the place in which a public declaration is made, regardless of ones views on baptism. I guess I need to read more on it to give a better answer.
Kind regards

Lincs.

Linc,

To admit that knowledge is lacking and in need of accessing is a sign of humility and honesty for which you deserve praise.

 

[JRRTFAN]

Im already involved in another thread so don’t want to get too deep in this one, just a quick comment to say this isn’t the case. There is a sacrifice involved in Protestant worship, one which is supported rather strongly by scripture: The sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, the sacrifice of the believers entire life:

Romans 12:1: “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.”

Hebrews 13:15: “Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name.”

1 Peter 2:5: “you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”

As such there is a sacrifice, but not a propitiatory one in the form of the Eucharist as Catholics see it.

Lincs.

Would you agree that one does not need an altar to sing a song or hymn and that the altar (if present) is not one of sacrifice in the general case of Protestant communions?
Regards

 

[grandfather]

Are you saying that Calvin and Luther both saw the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice?

Regards

Lincs.

Luther believed almost exactly what Catholics believe about the Eucharist. I just spent quite a bit of time with a Lutheran minister friend who confirmed this in our discussions. They believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ and also maintain the nature of the material elements. Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ and are bread and wine no longer. The elements maintain the appearance of bread and wine, but are transubstatiated and are entirely the body and blood of Jesus. Catholics have always believed this. Augustine wrote that at the Last Supper Jesus held in His hands His own body and blood.

I know less about Calvin than Luther, but he also taught that there were two sacraments if I am not mistaken. He called the Eucharist the sacrament of grace. Later Reformed and Presbyterians took a different view from Calvins, I think it was called memorialist.

 

[Lincoln7]

Luther believed almost exactly what Catholics believe about the Eucharist. I just spent quite a bit of time with a Lutheran minister friend who confirmed this in our discussions. They believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ and also maintain the nature of the material elements. Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ and are bread and wine no longer. The elements maintain the appearance of bread and wine, but are transubstatiated and are entirely the body and blood of Jesus. Catholics have always believed this. Augustine wrote that at the Last Supper Jesus held in His hands His own body and blood.

I know less about Calvin than Luther, but he also taught that there were two sacraments if I am not mistaken. He called the Eucharist the sacrament of grace. Later Reformed and Presbyterians took a different view from Calvins, I think it was called memorialist.

Indeed Luther upheld a form of real presence, distinct from transubstantiation however. Nor did he view it as a propitiatory sacrifice, which he most certainly opposed.

Calvin held to what’s commonly called ‘spiritual presence’, I affirm his views on this sacrament, as do most reformed Christians. He also denied it as a propitiatory sacrifice.

I’m aware of Augustines words, I think there are parts of his work that do not align with the current catholic understanding, as well as parts that could.

Regards

Lincs.

 

[Lapey]

Indeed Luther upheld a form of real presence, distinct from transubstantiation however. Nor did he view it as a propitiatory sacrifice, which he most certainly opposed.

Calvin held to what’s commonly called ‘spiritual presence’, I affirm his views on this sacrament, as do most reformed Christians. He also denied it as a propitiatory sacrifice.

I’m aware of Augustines words, I think there are parts of his work that do not align with the current catholic understanding, as well as parts that could.

Regards

Lincs.

You keep writing about the “current Catholic understanding.” Can you help us understand exactly what the current Catholic understanding is, when did this come about and by what authority it became the current teaching or understanding? As a bonus question, what was the understanding before this “current understanding” came to be?

 

[manualman]

Indeed Luther upheld a form of real presence, distinct from transubstantiation however. Nor did he view it as a propitiatory sacrifice, which he most certainly opposed.

Sure you aren’t reading your own biases here? If Luther really believed that God supernaturally made present the body and blood of Christ at the Eucharist, the lamb of God who takes away our sins, then at that point there is no rational basis to NOT seeing the mass as participation in the sacrificial offering of Christ at Calvary.

If the Eucharist IS the body and blood of Christ, then it IS the lamb of God who takes away our sins, by definition. And that lamb of God IS the sacrifice that atones for all human sinfulness. How you can tack on the caveat at the end “but it’s not a sacrifice” I have no comprehension.

Perhaps you mean to say that there can never be ANOTHER sacrifice. Catholics agree. We don’t sacrifice Christ over and over again. Each mass is supernaturally joined to Calvary. You fixate on the “once” part, we read on to the “for all” part. Celebrating mass is participating in the “for all” part of that Hebrews passage. Hope that clarifies things. Christ offering himself for us at Calvary is the focal point of time and space, his sacrificial presence radiates out from there to all of time and space. Remember, time is not a constraint to God.