Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Asahel Nettleton: The Forgotten Evangelist by Jim Ehrhard

January 20, 2010 by ADMIN

Asahel Nettleton- The Forgotten Evangelist by Jim Ehrhard

The year was 1812. America had just declared war on Great Britain in June and lost its first battle in October. In the midst of that climate, a young, unimpressive minister on his way to an assignment in New York stopped at a church in the community of South Britain, Connecticut. 1 When he was invited to preach, no one could have anticipated the impact his ministry would have, not only on this small church, but also on all the East Coast over the next three decades.

As this visiting preacher spoke, the congregation became aware that something unusual was happening. His probing questions seemed to penetrate each heart, peeling back layer after layer, showing the reality of their sin. Many in the congregation wondered how he knew them so well. As he continued, he warned the audience of their desperate need for repentance and the danger of any delay. Many in the congregation were brought to a deep conviction of sin.

After the message, the congregation dismissed without any formal invitation. They returned home to deal with God regarding their sin. During the week, conversion came mightily to many. 2 The revival that began that week spread throughout New England, spilled over into New York, and resulted in a deep work of Regeneration that lasted until the mid-1800s. During that span of time, God graciously used this man to bring more people to Christ than any man since George Whitefield came to America half a century earlier. Who was this man?

Mention the names of Finney, Moody, Sunday, or Graham, and visions of great evangelistic ministries are brought to mind. But mention Asahel Nettleton and few will have any idea who you are talking about. Except for being remembered as the one who opposed Finney at the New Lebanon Conferences, even most histories fail to tell of the work of revival under Nettleton.

Asahel Nettleton is a significant figure in the history of revivals who has been sadly forgotten. Yet his ministry might have been one of the most effective ever. Though he never pastored a church, never wrote a book, or led an evangelistic organization, Nettleton’s preaching led directly to the conversion of well over 30,000 people 3 at a time when our entire nation’s population was only nine million. Those figures, though large by comparison to most evangelists, are even more startling when one considers that his ministry encompassed little more than Connecticut and its bordering states. According to John Thornbury, the number of conversions in modern times “proportionate to the success of Asahel Nettleton” would be well over 600,000! 4

Thornbury is not alone in his assessment of Nettleton’s significance in history. His own contemporaries, who had heard such giants as Edwards, Whitefield, Finney, and Moody, counted Nettleton’s ministry as unusually successful. In 1844, The New York Observer said that Nettleton was “one of the most extraordinary preachers of the gospel with whom God has ever blessed this country.” The New York Evangelist agreed, saying, “Few men, since the apostolic days, have been honored with such a signal success in preaching the word, and in the conversion of sinners as he….” 5 Bennett Tyler said of him, “We do not claim for Dr. Nettleton the rank of Whitefield; but he stands very high among those who have ‘converted sinners from the very error of their ways, saved souls from death, and hidden a multitude of sins.'” 6 Even Lyman Beecher, who had both Nettleton and Finney in his pulpits, said of Nettleton, “Considering the extent of his influence, I regard him as beyond comparison, the greatest benefactor which God has given to this nation.” 7

Perhaps what is most significant about Nettleton’s ministry is not the sheer number of conversions but the number who remained faithful to Christ many years later. Most evangelists today would be delighted to “find” even a small percentage of their converts, much less to see them living for the Lord. 8 Nettleton’s converts were surprisingly solid. For example, of the eighty-four converts in an 1818 revival at Rocky Hill, Connecticut, all eighty-four had remained faithful, according to their pastor’s report twenty-six years later. Similarly, only three spurious conversions out of eighty-two professions of faith were noted in another pastor’s report on a revival in Ashford, Connecticut. 9

In contrast, toward the end of his life, “after reflecting on the many who had claimed conversion [under his ministry] but had since fallen away,” the great evangelist Charles Finney “had mixed thoughts on the genuine results of his work.” 10 He was not alone. In a letter to Finney, one of his coworkers raised some interesting questions about their work:

Let us look over the fields where you and I have laboured as ministers and what is now their normal state? What was their state within three months after we left them? I have visited and revisited many of these fields and groaned in spirit to see the sad, frigid, carnal, contentious state into which the churches have fallen and fallen very soon after we first departed from among them. 11

B. B. Warfield also tells of the testimony of Asa Mahan, Finney’s closest friend and long-time coworker:

No more powerful testimony is borne … than that of Asa Mahan, who tells us-to put it briefly-that everyone who was concerned in these revivals suffered a sad subsequent lapse: the people were left like a dead coal which could not be reignited…. 12 Nettleton’s ministry was decidedly different than that of Finney, not only with regard to conversions, but also with regard to the lasting impact upon the communities which he visited. One contemporary pastor, Bennett Tyler, noted the differences between the revivals of Finney and Nettleton:

These revivals were not temporary excitements, which like a tornado, sweep through a community, and leave desolutions behind them; but they were like showers of rain, which refresh the dry and thirsty earth, and cause it to bring forth “herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed.” These fruits were permanent. By them the churches were not only enlarged, but beautiful and strengthened; and a benign influence was exerted upon the community around. 13

Although Nettleton and Finney were contemporaries, Finney has eclipsed Nettleton completely. Today, we must ask these questions: Who was this man Asahel Nettleton, who was so specially used by God in the conversion of many souls? Why has one of such significance been sadly forgotten in our generation? And what makes his ministry so different from the evangelistic ministries we see today? Such questions form the focus of this paper.

His Early Years and Conversion

Born on April 21, 1783, on a farm in North Killingworth, Connecticut, Asahel was the second of six children. Baptized as an infant, his parents taught him morality, the Westminster Catechism, and farming skills. He attended the village school and participated in community parties, outings, and dances. As a youth, he had an unusual experience during a sunset where the falling darkness brought him his first serious thoughts about the reality of death. But these thoughts were fleeting and no permanent fruits came from this momentary reflection. 14

In the fall of 1800, at the age of eighteen, Asahel began to come under the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. After an evening of merrymaking at the annual Thanksgiving celebration, thoughts of death returned to haunt his conscience. These thoughts led him to religious pursuits. Instead of relieving his troubled heart, his zeal to pray, read the Scriptures, and do good works only produced greater doubts and dissatisfaction. 15

These failures led Nettleton to all sorts of doubts. He began to question whether the Bible was true. When he came to the conclusion that the Bible could not be trusted, he concluded that there was no God. However, such conclusions refused to comfort his heart for he thought, “What if the Bible should prove to be true! Then I am lost forever.” 16 The writings of Edwards and the Memoirs of David Brainerd deepened his conviction of lostness. After ten months of anguishing conviction, Nettleton came to the end of himself:

All self-righteousness failed me; and, having no confidence in God, I was left in deep despondency…. After awhile, a surprising tremor seized all my limbs, and death appeared to have taken hold upon me. Eternity-the word Eternity-sounded louder than any voice I ever heard; and every moment of time seemed more valuable than all the wealth of the world. Not long after this, an unusual calmness pervaded my soul, which I thought little of at first, except that I was freed from my awful convictions…. 17

Nettleton had been converted. The character of God became more lovely, the work of Jesus more precious, and the doctrines of grace more delightful:

The character of God, and the doctrines of the Bible, which I could not meditate upon before without hatred, especially those of election and free grace, now appear delightful, and the only means by which, through grace, dead sinners can be made the living sons of God. 18

His conversion came during a period of revival in Killingworth under the ministry of Josiah Andrews. By March 1802, ninety-one new converts were received into the church. The effects of the revival gave Asahel new aspirations. While working in the fields, he often thought, “If I might be the means of saving one soul, I should prefer it to all the riches and honors of this world.” 19 An epidemic swept through Killingworth during the spring and summer of 1802 killing his father and youngest brother. For the next three years, he cared for the farm and the family, taught in the village school, and studied under the tutelage of Josiah Andrews.

By 1805, Nettleton had committed himself to pursue missionary service. He enrolled at Yale and completed his academic training in an undistinguished fashion. 20 Still the potential of Nettleton did not escape the notice of President Timothy Dwight, grandson of Jonathan Edwards, who remarked: “He will make one of the most useful men this country has ever seen.” 21 Upon his graduation in 1809, he remained at the college to work and repay some debts. Nettleton was ordained in 1811, and while waiting for a call from one of the missionary societies, he ministered as pastor for a brief period in the “waste places” of southeastern Connecticut. 22 In the autumn of 1812, Nettleton received an invitation to preach in South Salem, New York. On his way to New York, he stopped over to spend a week in South Britain, Connecticut, where his fame as an evangelist began. 23

Years of Revival

The years from 1812 to 1822 can be accurately characterized as the years of revival in the ministry of Nettleton. Although God continued to use this preacher in revival until his death in 1844, these years provided the most remarkable movements of the Spirit of God under his ministry.

Following the revival at South Britain, Nettleton continued on to his appointment in South Salem, New York. This community was considered another of the “waste places,” not open to spiritual revival. 24 In a short time, the preaching of Nettleton began to take hold of the hearts and minds of the people. “The seriousness soon spread through the place, and the subject of religion became the engrossing topic of conversation.” 25 In a few weeks, a great number had been surprisingly converted. Asahel was so well liked that the church tried to call him as their pastor. However, he still considered himself bound for missionary service, and, after two months at South Salem, moved on to other preaching opportunities back in Connecticut. The results of his ministry were remarkably similar. In Danbury, Monroe, North Lyme, Hadlyme, and Bloomfield, “his labors were greatly blessed to the quickening of God’s people, and to the awakening and conversion of sinners.” 26

In the autumn of 1813, Nettleton went to preach in a church in Litchfield known as Milton. The church had dismissed its pastor under “strained circumstances” and the congregation was full of internal divisions. Again, the preaching of Nettleton brought many under great conviction. At one meeting, several experienced such horror of mind that they began to cry out in the services. Nettleton had them removed to a neighboring house to be personally counseled, while he continued the meeting. In a few months, a large number had been converted. In just over one month, more than eighty people were converted from every age group, ranging from a twelve-year-old to a widow of seventy. 27 Best of all, the breach in this once divided church had been healed. It was during his time at Milton that Nettleton became acquainted with Lyman Beecher who served as pastor in Litchfield. 28

Revival seemed to follow Nettleton in each of the towns he visited. By 1815, it seemed that everyone desired his labors among them. In the spring of 1815, the ministers of New Haven invited him to come to their community. His work of revival there began when he visited a local school for girls. In a personal letter to his friend, Philander Parmele, Nettleton recounted the progress of revival in this school:

A number have been alarmed. How many it is impossible to tell. It was just a week from the time I came to this place to the day on which the great inquiry openly and solemnly began. What must I do to be saved? For three days the distress of some was overwhelming. On the fourth day four were rejoicing. On the fifth day eleven more were rejoicing. From that time the work has been gradually spreading through the town. The prospect is still brightening. This morning I have found two more rejoicing in hope. Within about four weeks upwards of 50 have entertained hope in this place. 29

Similar experiences were recorded during Nettleton’s ministry in Middleton, Connecticut, in 1817:

There has been an increasing solemnity for some time past. Meetings were crowded and solemn…. One young man seized my hand exclaiming “I am a sinner. I am a sinner. What shall I do?” They [the people at the meeting] left the house and went home sighing, and sobbing in every direction. I came home and found a number around the door of Mr. Williams’ house, in the most awful distress. Some were standing, some sitting on the ground, and some on the doorsteps exclaiming “What shall I do? I shall die. I shall die. I can’t live.” This alarmed the neighbors who called to witness the awful scene. With much ado I got them into the house, about eight or ten in number. The fact was, the young man aforementioned, who left the meeting house in such distress, was walking in company with them, when all at once he found relief and exclaimed “I have found the Saviour.” He was now very joyful. He sat clothed and in his right mind: and they were afraid. My first business was to warn them against a false hope. Prayed with them and enjoined it particularly on them not to go home together, but to go alone, and be alone, for the business must be settled between God and their souls. Maria (a young woman living in this family) was one of the number. She retired to her chamber, sighing and sobbing, and crying for mercy, and exclaiming “I shall die, I shall die.” She came down and went out doors and returned in the same awful distress to her chamber. And suddenly all was still and hushed to silence. I sat still below and said nothing. I soon heard the sound of her footsteps descending the chamber stairs. She opened the door and with a joyful countenance exclaimed, “O, Sir, I have found the Saviour.” I continued to warn her of the danger of false hope. She exclaimed, “I love Christ. I do love Him. O how sweet.” In the morning, early, she called to see one of her anxious mates, who was so distressed the night before; and lo: Barsheba exclaimed, “I have found the Saviour.” This was a happy meeting. The young man aforementioned resided in the same family (this was John Towner’s house). On Saturday evening about midnight, another, equally distressed, found relief. Within a few days eight or ten are rejoicing in hope. What will be the end, I know not. Do pray for us, and your friend, A. Nettleton. 30

In the summer of 1819, Nettleton’s ministry shifted from Connecticut to the area near Saratoga Springs, New York. Although he went there for a period of rest, local ministers pressed him into service once they learned of his presence. In Saratoga Springs, forty professed salvation, including some of the most respectable people of the community. In nearby Malta, crowds as large as fourteen hundred came to hear him. He remained in the area until February 1820, reporting over six hundred converts during that period. 31

From there, his work touched the students of Union College in Schenectady, New York. Nettleton gives one account of the awakening that took place among the students there:

The room was so crowded that we were obliged to request all who had recently found relief to retire below, and spend time in prayer for those above. This evening will never be forgotten. The scene is beyond description. Did you ever witness two hundred sinners, with one accord in one place, weeping for their sins? Until you have seen this, you have no adequate conceptions of the solemn scene. 32

One student particularly impacted by Nettleton’s ministry was Francis Wayland, the future president of Brown University. Wayland’s interests before the revival were almost entirely academic, and religion was “a matter of small and distant reality.” 33 Nettleton’s preaching changed the direction of Wayland’s life. Wayland stated, “I became intimately acquainted with Mr. Nettleton, and my conversations with him were of great use to me.” His children also noted Nettleton’s impact on the ministry of their father: “He gained lessons never to be forgotten in the mode of addressing men on religious subjects.” 34 Wayland, though familiar with many of the great preachers of his era, said of Nettleton, “I suppose no minister of his time was the means of so many conversions.” 35

Nettleton stayed in the area until the fall of 1820. During that time, he was the instrument of revival in many congregations. In Nassau, New York, over one hundred people were converted in the period from the end of April to the end of June. 36 In one area, Nettleton himself estimated the impact of the revival: “Within a circle whose diameter would be less than twenty-four miles, not less than eight hundred souls have been hopefully born into the kingdom of Christ, since last September.” 37

Shortly after Nettleton returned to Connecticut, he began to preach in the church of Noah Porter in Framingham. Within three months, two hundred and fifty were converted. Not only this, the revival transformed the entire town. 38 But the grueling schedule that Nettleton kept was beginning to affect his health. He retired to the community of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, for a period of rest. Once again, the local pastor requested that he preach. Within weeks, revival broke out and within a few months more than eighty persons (half of them “heads of families”) had been converted. 39 In 1821 and 1822, Nettleton also labored in Connecticut and saw similar works of revival in such places as Litchfield (in Lyman Beecher’s church), Somers, Mansfield, Goshen, and other communities.

In early October 1822, Nettleton visited a family in Wilbraham, Massachusetts, where there was a case of typhus fever. By the middle of the month, he began to have the telltale symptoms and retired to the home of his friend, Philander Parmele, in Bolton, Connecticut. By mid-November, he was so sick that he dictated his will. Shortly thereafter, he began to recover only to discover that his gracious hosts, the Parmeles, had contracted the disease themselves. Mrs. Parmele recovered but Nettleton’s closest friend, Philander, succumbed to the disease and died on December 27. This news broke his heart and he described that time as the “most trying” of his life. While he continued to recover from the disease and the loss of his friend, Nettleton was encouraged by reports of the continuing effects of revivals that had been initiated under his preaching. 40

Years of Conflict

For nearly two years after the attack of typhus, Nettleton preached only occasionally. His weakness prevented any regular ministry and he sometimes had relapses that forced him to be bedridden for weeks. During that time, Nettleton put together a contemporary hymnal that met the need of churches in revival. Since Watts was so revered in the churches of his day, he wisely considered his publication a supplement to be used alongside of Watts rather than replacing it. In 1824, Nettleton’s Village Hymns for Social Worship, Selected and Original, Designed as a Supplement to the Psalms and Hymns of Dr. Watts was published and was extremely popular among the churches that had experienced revival. 41

42 43 44 45 By the autumn of 1824, Asahel’s health had sufficiently improved to allow him to return to some preaching. He first went to Bethlehem, Connecticut, to preach in the former pulpit of Joseph Bellamy. Forty came to faith during his short stay there. 46 From there, he preached in Brooklyn, New York, and Taunton, Massachusetts, with similar results. 47

In February 1826, he attended a congregation in Jamaica, New York, that was pastorless and full of strife. When the people learned of his identity, they asked him to preach and an awakening ensued that lasted into the autumn. It was during his stay in Jamaica, that Nettleton first received reports of problems arising from revivals in Oneida County, New York. It seemed the use of some New Measures in revival was causing great division and confusion in the churches of that area. An increasing flow of people came to him to complain about what was going on in these revivals and to plead with him to help set matters right. 48 Still, Nettleton hesitated:

Heretofore his battles had been with infidels and out and out enemies of the gospel. Although he had been engaged in minor theological debates with other preachers about the various points of theology, these discussions had taken little of his time and energy. Nothing has interfered with his concentration on the winning of souls. 49

In November, he went to Albany, New York, to talk with some pastors in that area. Charles G. Finney, the leading proponent of these New Measures, was preaching across the river in Troy. He even met with Finney on at least two occasions during his time there, though we have little information about those meetings. 50 In a letter to John Frost, one of Finney’s supporters in the area, Nettleton recounted that he was “already worn out with conversation” 51 and that the first meeting contained little discussion of the New Measures. In another letter to Frost, Nettleton is more specific about his concerns. There he cites a number of examples where the new measures and those using them were disrupting the churches of the area and “breaking down” the “settled ministers” of the churches. 52 Finney initiated the second meeting by visiting the home where Nettleton was staying in Albany. According to Finney’s account of the meeting, he offered to accompany Nettleton to the service where Asahel would be preaching. According to Finney, Nettleton “manifested uneasiness, and remarked that I must not be seen with him.” 53 According to Thornbury, “The uneasiness which Nettleton may have felt at this time would have been based upon the fact that a public appearance of the two men together would have been used to advantage by the new measures advocates.” 54

Following his second visit with Finney, Nettleton wrote a letter to “the Rev. Mr. Aikin of Utica” in which he outlined his objections to the New Measures. In beginning, however, Nettleton is careful to acknowledge the hand of God in the revivals of Finney: “There is, doubtless, a work of grace in Troy.” 55 He further noted:

We do not call into question the genuineness of those revivals, or the purity of the motives of those who have been most active in them….

But the evils to which I allude are felt by the churches abroad; members which have gone out to catch the spirit, and have returned, some grieved, others soured, and de-nouncing ministers, colleges, theological seminaries, and have set whole churches by the ears, and kept them in turmoil for months together. Some students of divinity have done more mischief in this way than they can ever repair….

The evil is running in all directions. A number of churches have experienced a revival of anger, wrath, malice, envy, and evil-speaking, (without the knowledge of a single conversion,) merely in consequence of a desperate attempt to introduce these measures. Those ministers and Christians who have heretofore been most and longest acquainted with revivals, are most alarmed at the spirit which has grown out of the revivals of the west …. The friends of brother Finney are certainly doing him and the cause of Christ great mischief. They seem more anxious to convert ministers and Christians to the peculiarities, than to convert souls to Christ. 56

Some of the peculiarities he mentioned included the use of the anxious bench, praying openly for sinners in the meeting by name, appointing new converts to lead revivals, and denouncing ministers who did not use their methods. Nettleton was especially concerned about the unwillingness of Finney and his colaborers to have any of their methods examined. Furthermore, anyone who questioned the New Measures was denounced as being “enemies of revival.” 57

Although Nettleton did not wish to be cast into a role of confrontation, his observations of the work in Oneida County convinced him that he could do no less:

Irregularities are prevailing so fast, and assuming such a character, in our churches, as infinitely to overbalance the good that is left. These evils, sooner or later, must be corrected. Somebody must speak, or silence will prove our ruin. Fire is an excellent thing in its place, and I am not afraid to see it blaze among the briers and thorns; but when I see it kindling where it will ruin fences, and gardens, and houses, and burn up my friends, I cannot be silent. 58

Thus the stage was set for what came to be known as the New Lebanon Conference on July 18, 1826, in New Lebanon, New York. Before the meeting, Finney printed a sermon he had preached on Amos 3:3 “How Can Two Walk Together Except They Be Agreed?” In his sermon, Finney contended that all who opposed his New Measures were opposed only because of “their frosty hearts.” Since they were not right with God, Finney reasoned, they could not appreciate “white-hot revivalism.” 59

Nettleton responded with a letter to Gardner Spring which was printed in The New York Observer In it, he noted that Finney never really dealt with the distinction between true and false zeal, calling all zeal a mark of religious affection.

The sermon in question entirely overlooks the nature of true religion. It says not one word by which we can distinguish between true and false zeal, true and false religion. If the tone of the feeling can only be raised to a certain pitch, then all is well. The self-righteous, the hypocrite, and all who are inflated with pride, will certainly be flattered and pleased with such an exhibition, especially if they are very self-righteous and very proud. False affections often rise higher than those that are genuine; and this every preacher, in seasons of revival, has had occasion to observe and correct…. If the preacher is not extremely careful to distinguish between true and false affections, the devil will certainly come in and overset the work, and bring it into disgrace. 60

Nettleton’s letter attacked both the logical and scriptural foundations to which Finney had appealed. He pointed out that one cannot dismiss all evaluation as “unchristian”: “Without great care and close discrimination, the preacher will unwittingly justify all the quarrels and divisions in our churches.” 61 He reminded readers that Paul would not even allow men to be teachers unless they were of “full age, who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil,” and that Paul would not allow young converts to preach: “Not being a novice, lest he fall into condemnation, reproach, and the snare of the devil.” 62 Finally, Nettleton listed Edwards’s observations about the marks of spiritual pride, concluding:

It is a mark of spiritual pride to refuse to enter into discourse or reasoning with such as are considered carnal men, when they make objections and inquiries. Humility would lead ministers to condescend to carnal men, as Christ has condescended to us, to bear with our unteachables and stupidity, and follow us with instructions, line upon line, precept upon precept, saying: “Come, let us reason together”; it would lead to a compliance with the precept: “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh of you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.” 63

With these two great salvos fired, the conference was already in deep water when it convened. Little was accomplished, and both parties departed with no agreement on any issues. Finney felt vindicated as churches in the large cities on the East Coast began to invite him to their pulpits. In fact, this conference was the last time the two leading preachers of New England, Asahel Nettleton and Lyman Beecher, stood together. 64 The second crisis in Nettleton’s life, the debate over the theology of Nathaniel Taylor, would divide them forever and thrust Beecher into Finney’s camp.

During 1827, Asahel Nettleton experienced spells of fainting which prompted his doctors to encourage him to try a warmer climate as a remedy. Nettleton decided to spend the winter in the mountains of Virginia near Hampton-Sydney College. He preached in the surrounding towns with his usual effectiveness. While there, several students from Yale visited the college and created a stir by advocating the teachings of their president, Nathaniel W Taylor. 65

Most alarming was Taylor’s denial of the complete depravity of man, the imputation of original sin, and the human inability. 66 Apart from any special work of the Holy Spirit, man could refrain from sinning simply by choosing to do so. Likewise, no special work of God was needed to bring the sinner to Himself. Not only was this theology doctrinally unsound, Nettleton knew that it would serve to undermine true conversion by placing the focus on what man can do rather than on what God does in Salvation. All that an evangelist needed was to present the truths in such a way as to persuade men toward a decision:

Dr. T. speaks as if the only difficulty in the way of a sinner loving God lay in their want of clear and distinct views of divine things…. Dr. T. takes it for granted that if the sinner only had clear views of God, he would love him. But the facts prove the contrary. 67

Nettleton also recognized that such a theology would support the very methods he sought to oppose in Finney’s ministry. The publication of Finney’s autobiography confirmed any suspicions Nettleton might have had. In it, Finney openly opposed any doctrine of original sin, referring to it as “anti-scriptural and nonsensical dogma.” 68 Finney contended against the belief that the new birth was in any way a divine gift. He insisted that

regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference…. when mankind becomes truly religious, they are not enabled to put forth exertions which they were unable before to put forth. They only exert powers which they had before, in a different way, and use them for the glory of God. 69

When such a theology is applied to revival, the revivalist may use any means necessary to bring the church to a state of revival. Finney himself said of revival: “A revival is not a miracle, nor dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means-as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means.” 70

Nettleton’s stance against the New Haven Theology eventually lead to the break in his relationship with Lyman Beecher. Beecher felt that the issue of theology was indeed the primary one that caused Nettleton to oppose both Finney and Taylor: “He wanted the battle to go on. He was one of those that never can give up their own will. He had the notion that the New Haven brethren were currying favor with Finney…. That was the origin of all his bitterness against Taylor.” 71 The letters of Nettleton indicate no such bitterness on his part toward Taylor. Indeed, he remained Taylor’s friend until his death. In a letter to Taylor in the last year of his life, Nettleton mentioned the doctrinal debate and assured Taylor that, although they had disagreed for many years, their personal friendship had not been affected:

I need not tell you that I love you. You know that I have ever loved you…. I impeach not your motives. I judge not your heart. I would cherish the hope that your religious experience is at variance with some of the things which you have published-I say this with the kindest of feelings, and with eternity in view. Receive it as my dying testimony, and as an expression of my sincere love. Farewell, my brother. We shall soon meet at the judgment seat of Christ. God grant that we may meet in heaven. 72

In his final years, Nettleton gave his time and energy to the students of the Theological Seminary of Connecticut in Hartford, founded in response to the continued teaching of the New Haven Theology at Yale. Bennett Tyler became president, but Nettleton was the “father confessor of the campus,” according to George Briney. 73 Evangelism was his field and the preaching of doctrines “eminently useful in winning souls” formed the theme of most of his lectures. 74

Nettleton became seriously ill in 1841 with what was diagnosed as gallstones. Two surgeries proved unsuccessful and Nettleton continued to weaken. He died the morning of May 16, 1844. He left behind a considerable estate, mostly from income from the sale of his hymnal. Even his will indicated a man sold out to the cause of Christ: He willed small portions to his brother and sister and some friends; the balance he willed to the Seminary and to the American Board for Foreign Missions, the institutions “which represented the causes closest to his heart.” 75

Conclusion

One cannot overestimate the importance of the ministry of Asahel Nettleton. Francis Wayland, founder of Brown University, said of him, “I suppose no minister of his time was the means of so many conversions.” 76 Most surprising to modern readers is the discovery that Nettleton’s tremendous effectiveness occurred without any of the methods that modern evangelicals think are so essential in evangelism. For example, in all his ministry, thousands came to a solid, lasting faith in Christ, though Nettleton never once gave an “altar call.” In fact, one of the greatest struggles in Nettleton’s life occurred as he lead the stand against such New Measures employed by Charles Finney.

Without a doubt, Finney’s methods were effective in attracting large crowds and in securing large numbers of “professions.” But they involved many questionable aspects that Nettleton and other ministers could not accept. In one of his letters, Nettleton wrote of his great concern for future generations. Asahel recognized that the greatest danger might not be to his generation but to succeeding ones who would assume that all revivals were dependent upon such measures:

If the evil be not soon prevented, a generation will arise, inheriting all the obliquities of their leaders, not knowing that a revival ever did or can exist without all those evils. And these evils are destined to be propagated from generation to generation, waxing worse and worse. 77

Indeed, the fears of Nettleton have come to pass. Not only is Nettleton forgotten, 78 the idea of revival apart from certain methods has also passed from memory. Nettleton has been forgotten because our generation, like the followers of Finney, has become obsessed with results and statistics to the neglect of theology. Finney himself said,

The success of any measure designed to promote a revival of religion, demonstrates wisdom…. When the blessing evidently follows the introduction of the measure itself, the proof is unanswerable, that the measure is wise. It is profane to say that such a measure will do more harm than good. 79

Every new church growth idea that works is deemed to be of God. “After all, the results speak for themselves,” most argue. Nettleton refused to accept any New Measures simply on the basis of effectiveness. Likewise, he knew that allowing any method to go untested by the truth of Scripture would ultimately lead to the ruin and discredit of any revival:

And all of those ministers who do not discriminate between true and false zeal, true and false affection, in their preaching and conversion, and make that difference, and hold it up to the view of the world, if possible as clear as the sun, heartily approving of one, and as heartily and publicly condemning the other, will turn out to be the greatest traitors to the cause of revivals. 80

Nettleton’s ministry also teaches us about the importance of preaching in revival. Few men have ever preached with the power and effectiveness of Nettleton. Francis Wayland said he “would sway an audience as the trees of the forest are moved.” 81 Thornbury summarized Nettleton’s preaching:

In the accounts and descriptions of the great revivals in which Nettleton laboured, one thing comes across very powerfully, and that is that he was able to bring home the awesome realities of the eternal world to the souls of men. When he talked about the heinousness of sin, they felt its sting. When he portrayed the sufferings of Christ, they felt the trauma of Calvary. When he proclaimed the holy character of God, they trembled at the vision. When he thundered forth the judgments of hell, men were moved to escape that place. 82

While most modern preaching seeks to avoid doctrinal topics, Nettleton, like Whitefield and Edwards before him, preached the great doctrines of faith. One pastor in East Granby, Connecticut, described his preaching during the revival in his congregation:

Doctrinal sermons were frequent; but these had a practical turn. They were eminently scriptural and plain, and made men feel that they were the men addressed, and not their neighbors. He sometimes preached on the severer doctrines with great power, and apparent good effect. 83

Nettleton’s ministry reminds us that we can preach all the great doctrines with great effect in awakening people to God.

Our need for revival today is as great as it has ever been. But it is not just any kind of revival that we need. We need a revival that is clearly based upon the work of the Holy Spirit rather than on the methods of man. Nettleton’s ministry, when compared with that of Finney, shows that real revival was not always dependent upon certain “laws of revival” popularized by Finney. It came simply upon the faithful and fearless preaching of God’s Word. Nettleton’s ministry testifies to the power of God’s Word in bringing sinners to faith. Most of all, it reminds us that revival, like conversion, is truly a work of a sovereign God among us.

.. the connection between this subject of our ministerial responsibility and revival is surely apparent. In a spiritual awakening plentiful success is given to the Word preached; preaching is seen to be what the Puritans called “the chariot of the Spirit.” But before these large communications of grace become public they are generally first felt in private, and that is because God has promised the supply of his Spirit to his servants in answer to prayer.

Iain H. Murray

The results of the work of Christ are not suspended upon our efforts. Spiritual awakenings do not come because prayerfulness rises to a certain degree of intensity. It is true God appoints prayer as a means of blessing but he does more: the Spirit himself inspires the prayer which he means to answer, and so with regard to prayer the Christian’s first encouragement is that in this also God is his help and strength. Prayer depends as much upon God as the shadow does upon the sun. It is the divine influence in prayer which counts; where this is absent it matters not how many participants may be organized to petition heaven, we shall only beat the air.

Iain H. Murray

The New Testament does not focus on some “great, general revival,” not even on revival in the total body of Christ, as much as this is needed. What appears consistently in the New Testament is an emphasis upon the local congregation. The Church began this way in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost and then continued to mother other churches after its model.

Armin R. Gesswein

Notes:

1 John F. Thornbury, God Sent Revival (Durham, England: Evangelical Press, 1977), 17.

2 Ibid., 20.

3 Bennett Tyler and Andrew A. Bonar, Nettleton and His Labors (1854, Banner of Truth reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1975), 17.

4 Thornbury, 233.

5 Ibid., 226.

6 Tyler and Bonar, viii.

7 Ibid., 23.

8 Amazingly, one of the greatest evangelistic organizations of our time is very pleased with a retention rate of less than 15 percent. See Sterling Houston, Crusade Evangelism and the Local Church (Minneapolis: World Wide Publishing, 1984), 29. Most alarming is that the majority of those who claim to have made “decisions for Christ” have no interest whatsoever in Christ or His church. See Jim Ehrhard, “The Dangers of the Invitation System,” Reformation & Revival Journal, Summer 1993, 2:82.

9 Robert A. Swanson, “Asahel Nettleton-The Voice of Revival,” Fundamentalist Journal, May 1986:51.

10 Church History, VIII, 4:4.

11 Cited in B. B. Warfield, Perfectionism, 2 vols. (New York: Oxford, 1932), 2:26.

12 Ibid., 2:26-27.

13 Bennett Tyler, New England Revivals As They Existed at the Close of the Eighteenth and the Beginning of the Nineteenth Centuries (Boston: Massachusetts Sabbath School Society, 1846, reprinted by Richard Owen Roberts Publisher, Wheaton, Illinois, 1980), 7.

14 Thornbury, 26-27; Tyler and Bonar, 18-19.

15 Thornbury, 29-31.

16 Tyler and Bonar, 26.

17 Ibid., 21-22.

18 Ibid., 22.

19 Tyler, 29.

20 However, his college friends thought highly of him: “[He] was held in respect by all in college; but peculiarly loved and esteemed by Christian professors. His spirit was excellent, and his example unexceptionable” Tyler and Bonar, 39-41.

21 Thornbury, 37; Tyler and Bonar, 41.

22 These places were towns that had been visited by James Davenport during the First Great Awakening. His extravagant methods often resulted in church splits and brought much discredit to the idea of revival in those churches. See Thornbury, 43-47, and Iain Murray, Jonathan Edwards (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987), 223-29.

23 Thornbury, 52-53.

24 “The church was destitute of a pastor, and was in a cold and backslidden state. Great spiritual apathy existed in the congregation,” noted Bennett Tyler. Tyler and Bonar, 65.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid., 66-67.

27 George Hugh Briney, The Life and Letters of Asahel Nettleton, 1783-1844 (Thesis, Hartford Theological Seminary, 1943), 60.

28 Thornbury, 58-61; Tyler and Bonar, 67-81. Tyler gives a number of personal accounts of conversions that occurred in the Litchfield area through Nettleton’s ministry.

29 Letter to Philander Parmele, August 4, 1815, Nettleton Manuscript Collection, Hartford Seminary Foundation.

30 Letter to Philander Parmele, December 1, 1817, Nettleton Manuscript Collection, Hartford Seminary Foundation. All grammatical errors and spellings have been retained as in the original hand-written letter.

31 Thornbury, 89. Also see Tyler and Bonar, 141-43, for one minister’s report of the effect of Nettleton’s ministry in his congregation.

32 Thornbury, 91.

33 Ibid., 92.

34 Ibid., 93.

35 Ibid., 55.

36 Ibid., 97-101.

37 Ibid., 92.

38 Tyler and Bonar, 147-53.

39 Ibid., 154-65.

40 Thornbury, 129-31.

41 Ibid., 132-37.

42 Ibid., 180-85.

43 Ibid., 205.

44 Ibid., 205-206.

45 Ibid., 206-210.

46 Bellamy was a friend of Edwards and a proponent of revival during the First Great Awakening. Although he died in 1790, his theology continued to influence most of western Connecticut. Ibid., 153. Also see Tyler and Bonar, 240-63, for more detailed accounts of these engagements.

47 Ibid.

48 Ibid., 153-56.

49 Ibid., 157.

50 Iain Murray, Revival and Revivalism, The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism, 1750-1858 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1994), 228-30. Hereafter cited as Murray, Revivalism.

51 Cited in Briney, 125.

52 Briney, 307-20.

53 From The Memoirs of Rev. Charles G. Finney cited in Thornbury, 165.

54 Thornbury, 165.

55 Tyler and Bonar, 342.

56 Ibid., 343-44.

57 Ibid., 348.

58 Thornbury, 145.

59 Ibid., 173.

60 Tyler and Bonar, 360.

61 Ibid., 362.

62 Ibid.

63 Ibid., 368-74.

64 Thornbury, 174-79.

65 Ibid., 182-94.

66 This idea was not entirely unique to Taylor. Its roots were in the teachings of Samuel Hopkins. He taught that there is no sin but actual transgressions. He denied any imputation of sin from Adam passed down to his descendants. His theology formed the basis for views of Taylor and most of the advocates of the “New Haven Theology,” often called the “New Divinity.” See Joseph A. Conforti, Samuel Hopkins and the New Divinity Movement (Washington, D.C.: Christian College Consortium, 1981).

67 “Dr. Taylor’s Views of the Means of Regeneration,” Nettleton Manuscript Collection, Hartford Seminary Foundation, 182-2872-80308:18.

68 Michael S. Horton, “The Legacy of Finney,” Modern Reformation, January-February 1995, 6.

69 Ibid., 7-8.

70 Ibid., 8.

71 Murray, Revivalism, 266-67.

72 Briney, 215-16.

73 Ibid., 193.

74 Thornbury, 216-19.

75 Briney, 217.

76 Thornbury, 94.

77 Tyler and Bonar, 348.

78 Even his picture, once prominent at the Seminary, now sits abandoned in the attic. According to Thornbury, “The fate of his picture seems almost symbolic of what has happened to his testimony in America,” Thornbury, 229.

79 Quoted in MacArthur, 233.

80 Tyler and Bonar, 363.

81 Thornbury, 55.

82 Ibid., 107.

83 Tyler and Bonar, 80.

Posted in Asahel Nettleton, Jim Ehrhard |

The Dangers of the Invitation System by Jim Ehrhard

January 20, 2010 by ADMIN

The Dangers of the Invitation System by Jim Ehrhard

As a young minister, I once made the “mistake” of closing a Wednesday evening service without extending a public invitation.[2] Early the next morning, an irate husband came to my office. For the first time in years, his unsaved wife had come with him to church. “If you had only given an invitation,” he angrily explained, “she would have gone down the aisle.”

I explained that if the seed of God’s Word had been planted in her, then she would come to faith. Then she could “go down the aisle” on Sunday and share what God had done. My explanation fell on deaf ears. I had missed the opportune time, and if she never came to Christ, I would have to bear her damnation on my conscience for eternity, he retorted.

In the ensuing months, God granted me many opportunities to speak personally with this lady about her spiritual condition. Not only was it obvious that she was not under conviction of sin; but she had little real understanding of the gospel. Through our conversations, she came to see her sin and real conviction made her life miserable. One morning she called and said, “I’ve finally come to Jesus. Now I understand what you’ve been talking about.”

This experience, and many similar that followed, led me to reexamine my views of the invitation system that I had always assumed were as much a part of the gospel as the death and resurrection of Jesus. My involvement with Campus Crusade, attendance at a number of schools of evangelism, and my denominational traditions had led me to see the public invitation as vital to evangelism. Studying the Scriptures and the history of preaching and revivals began to lead me to a different conclusion. But the process of laying aside something that was so “normal” to me was a great emotional struggle. I needed to know that the dangers of such a system outweighed the benefits that everyone claimed.[3] I needed to know that I could still be evangelistic without extending a public altar call. I needed to see a better way.

It is my hope that this article will help you in these areas. To do a thorough analysis of the system and its history is far beyond the scope of this undertaking. But perhaps as we examine this issue, we can see the dangers inherent in this system and chart a course for a better way.

As we begin, one thing must be made thoroughly clear. I am not advocating that we not invite people to come to Christ. The invitation to come to Christ is one that we are called to make. Should we shrink back from such a call, we would be rightly accused of being “ashamed of the gospel of Christ.” Thus we should do everything possible to be more proficient in extending God’s great invitation to come to Christ.

However, God’s invitation that must be extended to all is not synonymous with man’s invitation system. Only since the l80Os has this system been employed to bring men to Christ.[4] Since that time, this system has been refined and employed to such an extent that many today equate “coming to faith” with “coming down the aisle.” Such an equation is not only inaccurate; it is dangerous because it deceives many into resting their faith on a “profession” rather than on Christ, who alone is “able to save to the uttermost” (cf. Heb. 7:25).

The Dangers

1) The danger of promoting something that is not promoted in Scripture

Evangelists often seek biblical support for this practice in a number of passages. One evangelist says, “Christ always called people publicly, and this statement is confirmed by texts such as ‘Follow Me,’ or ‘Whosoever shall confess Me before men, him will I confess before My Father which is in heaven.’”[5] But to conclude that Jesus gave altar calls on the basis of those passages is to fail to be honest with the text. No doubt Jesus called men to Himself. But do we see any example where He (or the apostles, for that matter) appealed for people to “come forward” as either a testimony to their decision or as an act of accepting Him?

Furthermore, what is Jesus calling these to? Is it merely to make a “one time” decision about Him, or to follow Him all their lives? The invitation system gives the impression that the former is Jesus’ intent. And what about “confessing Him before men”? Is Jesus saying that by a single act of confession one becomes a believer? Or is He teaching that one mark of true faith is a life that continually confesses Him? Again, the invitation system leads many to trust their eternal destination to confidence in a “confession,” though they openly live in rebellion to Him throughout their lives.

In summary, many passages show that Jesus and the apostles called men to repentance and faith. But no passage indicates that either used any form of “invitation system” in bringing them to faith or in confirming their faith.[6]

2) The danger of eliciting an emotional response based upon the personality of the speaker or the persuasion of the appeal

In Mark 4, Jesus portrays four types of hearers of God’s Word by using the parable of the soils. In the second soil, Jesus describes one who “hears the word and immediately receives it with great joy.” But, Jesus cautions, “they have no root in themselves and so endure only for a time.” Jesus knew the reality of being heard by crowds who had no desire to truly follow Him.

While this psychological element ought to be reason for concern and caution in using the invitation system, proponents actually argue that this element is all the more reason to extend an appeal for a public decision. Billy Graham teaches that the pressure brought upon the human soul is so great that an emotional outlet must be given. He argues:

Many psychologists would say it is psychologically sound. One of the reasons why our films and dramas usually have such a bad effect is that they stir the emotion to such a high pitch and do not offer any practical outlet for action.[7]

Evangelist George Sweazey agrees: “To stir people religiously without giving them anything they can do about it leaves them far worse off than they were before.”[8]

In reality, most psychologists would agree with Graham’s assessment of the psychological pressure of the appeal, but would conclude that the response to his call is largely the result of this psychological pressure. One psychologist, George Target, gives such an assessment:

All present are told to pray, Instructed to close their eyes and bow the head, and the form of the words is the auto-suggestive one that hundreds of others are already going forward, finding happiness. peace, love, God…. The counselors planted all over the audience make the first few moves, create the sense that the statement is true even when it very often is not…. It might all be true, there might be some nameless peace down there with all the others. The tension screws to the breaking point and beyond. The wonder is that so few actually obey.[9]

In his book, Preaching and Preachers, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones cites an example in which the invitation appeal given by an evangelist was, by program necessity, separated from the message by a half-hour of hymn singing. In explanation of the disappointingly small response to his appeal, the evangelist stated that the effect of his appeal was diminished by the half-hour of hymn singing. Lloyd-Jones observes that the evangelist’s “admitting that half an hour of hymn singing can do away with the effect of a sermon… is a striking illustration of the fact that direct pressure on the will can produce ‘results.’[10]

Lewis Sperry Chafer, a well-known evangelist and one of the founders of Dallas Theological Seminary, used the invitation system until he saw the inherent dangers:

Because of satanic blindness to the gospel of grace (2 Cor. 4:34), unregenerate man cannot comprehend the true basis of salvation, and is therefore ever prone to do the best he knows. This is to attempt to work out his own standing before God by his own efforts. It is this natural tendency to do something of merit that prompts many to respond to the evangelist’s appeal…. A leader with a commanding personality (and every successful evangelist must possess that characteristic in the extreme) may secure the public action of many, when the Issue is made one of religious merit through some public act.[11]

To make matters worse, many go away from the “altar,” told that they are now Christians, knowing that they are not changed one bit. As a result, their unbelief may harden into skepticism toward anything Christian. R. L. Dabney notes:

They feel that a cruel trick has been played upon their inexperience by the ministers and friends of Christianity in thus thrusting them, in the hour of their confusion, into false positions…. How natural to conclude that those [experiences of conversion] of all others are delusions also? They say: “The only difference between myself and these earnest Christians is that they have not yet detected the cheat as I have.”[12]

The extension of an appeal for public decision may result in a purely psychological response that provides a catharsis for the emotional pressure of the sermon. Such persons falsely assume that their action has made them right with God. In others, it may drive them further into skepticism and doubt about the reality of the conversion of anyone. Such dangers ought to alarm every person sincerely concerned about the salvation of lost souls.

3) The danger of confusing the “coming forward” with salvation

Here we have one of the greatest dangers of the invitation system. Even those employing it go to great pains to make clear that “going down the aisle” does not save anyone. We are saved by faith in Christ alone, they contend.

Billy Graham, for example, says:

There’s nothing about the mechanics of coming forward that saves anybody’s soul. Coming forward is an open acknowledgment and a testimony of an inward experience that you have had with Christ. But this inward experience with Christ, this encounter, is the most important thing.[13]

But examination of the invitation used by Graham shows just how confusing the system is. Keep in mind that Graham has already noted that the coming forward is a “testimony of an inward experience that you have had with Christ.” When is the person converted? Why are they coming?

I’m going to ask you to come forward. Up there—down there—I want you to come. You come right now—quickly. If you are here with friends or relatives, they will wait for you. Don’t let distance keep you from Christ. It’s a long way, but Christ went all the way to the cross because He loved you. Certainly you can come these few steps and give your life to Him….[14]

At the “altar,” the confusion continues as he addresses those who have come: “You have come tonight to Jesus Christ, you have come to receive Him into your heart….” Which is it? Have they already come to Jesus, or are they coming now to receive Him? Graham continues: “He receives you; He died for you; He says, ‘Thy sins are forgiven.’ You accept that. The past is forgiven, God forgets…. He cannot even see your sins.”[15] Then he leads them to repeat a prayer known as “the sinner’s prayer.” The question again is obvious: have they been forgiven, or will they be when they pray the prayer?

To make matters worse, many often add so many things to the invitation that one cannot be certain what he is being asked to do. This was especially true in the invitations of Billy Sunday who often exhorted people to “Come on down and take my hand against booze, for Jesus Christ, for your flag.”[16]

Even Spurgeon warned about the potential for confusing any system[17] with salvation:

Sometimes shut up that enquiry-room. I have my fears about that institution if it be used in permanence, and as an inevitable part of the services…. If you should ever see that 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 that penitent form than elsewhere, aim a blow at that notion at once.[18]

Who can observe the invitation system today and not see that many are in danger of confusing this practice with coming to faith in Christ?

4) The danger of counting great numbers who only discredit their profession by their lives

In fact, Leighton Ford argues:

I am convinced that the giving of some kind of public invitation to come to Christ is not only theologically correct, but also emotionally sound. Men need this opportunity for expression. The inner decision for Christ is like driving a nail through a board. The open declaration of it is like clinching the nail on the other side, so that it cannot easily be pulled out.[19]

In other words, the giving of an invitation ought to result in an even higher percentage of “converts” living out their profession. Yet the very opposite seems to be true.

Even the statistics compiled using the invitation system show that only a very small percentage of “professors” show any signs of conversion even a few weeks after the decision. According to Sterling Huston, a survey after a crusade in the Pacific Northwest indicated that only 16 percent of the inquirers became new additions to the churches. While one should be appalled at the low rate of retention, Huston actually considers this a significant fact showing the value of the crusade![20]

While pastoring in New England, our church participated in two Graham Crusades. We received the names of ten converts from one crusade and six from the other. In our follow up, not one was interested in church, the Bible, or even talking about their “new-found faith in Christ.” Other pastors reported the same results.

Ernest Reisinger notes: “This unbiblical system has produced the greatest record of statistics ever compiled by church or business.”[21] But such an observation is not new to our times. A century ago, Dabney observed, “The thing is so well-known that in many regions the public coolly expect about forty-five out of fifty, or even a higher ratio, to apostatize ultimately.”[22]

Such was not the common experience before the use of the invitation system. Those who were converted were so thoroughly changed that there was no need of a system to encourage decisions or record them before there was fruit. False conversions were the exception rather than the rule in the ministry of Finney’s contemporary, Asahel Nettleton. For example, of the 84 converts in an 1818 revival in Rocky Hill, CT, all 84 had remained faithful according to their pastor’s report 26 years later! Similarly, only three spurious conversions out of 82 professions were noted in a similar pastor’s report on a revival in Ashford, CT.[23]

Toward the end of his life, Charles Finney, after reflecting on the many who claimed conversion but had since fallen away, had mixed thoughts about the genuineness of his work. In fact, his development of a doctrine of perfectionism (“entire sanctification” was the term preferred by Finney) came out of his attempt to answer the question as to why so many of his “converts” lived such godless lives. The use of an invitation system eventually leads to a two-tiered approach to the Christian life to explain the difference between those few who have been changed by their “decision” and the multitudes who have not.[24]

5) The danger of giving assurance to those who are unconverted

This is perhaps the greatest alarm for those who sincerely desire to see men enter the Kingdom of Heaven. If our use of such a system leads some to believe that their decision “settles things with God” for all eternity, then we may be responsible for many of those in Matthew 7 who hear the words of our Lord saying, “I never knew you. Away from Me, you evildoers.” It is vital that we share the good news, but it behooves us equally to be certain that we not give assurance to those who show no evidence of conversion.

That is exactly what the invitation system does. It encourages people to make a response that “settles things” and, through subsequent counseling, to never doubt that decision. Anyone who is involved in personal evangelism can share countless examples of persons who, though presently living in gross sin, will nonetheless tell the evangelist that they are fine because they “made a decision for Christ” a certain number of years ago. They have never had any change in their life; they have no interest in church, the Bible, or even God. But they have made their “decision.” Can we not see how dangerous such a system is to the souls of men?

Two centuries ago, evangelist George Whitefield warned about this danger:

I am glad you know when persons are justified. It is a lesson I have not yet learnt. There are so many stony ground hearers, that receive the Word with joy, that I have determined to suspend my judgment till I know the tree by its fruits. That makes me so cautious now, which I was not thirty years ago, of dubbing converts so soon. I love now to wait a little, and see if people bring forth fruit; for there are so many blossoms which March winds you know blow away, that I cannot believe they are converts till I see fruit brought back; it will never do a sincere soul any harm.[25]

Likewise Spurgeon warned:

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.”[26]

In The Soul Winner, Spurgeon cautions against using pressure to secure quick decisions:

It very often happens that the converts that are born in excitement die when the excitement is over…. Some of the most glaring sinners known to me were once members of a church; and were, as I believe, led to make a profession by undue pressure, well-meant but ill-judged.[27]

For years, we have heard about the values of the invitation system. It is even widely intimated (often plainly stated) that one who failed to give public invitations could not be concerned for the souls of men. Yet could it be that the very opposite is true: that the very extension of such an appeal might be the means for deluding many into a false state of assurance ultimately resulting in their damnation?

A Better Way

But some will ask, “What other way is there to bring people to Christ?” I would respond: “The way that was used by Jesus and the apostles, the Reformers, the Puritans, and most others until the 1830s.” That way is simply to proclaim the truth, to call men to repent and believe, and to leave the results in the hands of the Spirit who alone can bring people to faith (cf. John 3; 6:44, 65; etc.).

To explain a little more fully, let me give you two “musts” for those who would be evangelistic apart from using the invitation system.

1) We must learn to trust the power or God’s Word to convince, convert, and change lives

Paul said: “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16). In I Corinthians 1:18, he contended: “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” Peter was likewise convinced that the Word of God has power to convert. He reminded believers that they had been “born again, not of perishable seed, but imperishable, through the living and enduring Word of God” (1 Peter 1:23).

To be evangelistic, we must be convinced of the power that God’s Word has in converting men without the help of our man-made systems. Remember the evangelist whose appeal was separated from his message by a half-hour of hymn singing? It is obvious that he was not convinced of the power of God’s Word apart from the addition of his appeal. We must be, or we will be tempted to add things to the preaching of the Word to secure greater commitments.

Those who ministered before the development of the invitation system saw the awesome power of the Word to work in men’s hearts. David Brainerd testifies to the:

preaching God made use of for the awakening of sinners, and the propagation of this “work of grace among the Indians”…. There was then the greatest appearance of divine power, in awakening numbers of secure souls, promoting convictions begun, and comforting the distressed.[28]

Accounts from the ministry of Nettleton show the deep and penetrating work of the Word of God on hearers:

As he was speaking, a youth sitting near a window cried out like one shot with an arrow. The people were so engrossed in the evangelist’s message that it hardly caused a diversion. Several in one family were aroused at this meeting and went home weeping. The head of the house had gone to bed when they arrived. He listened as their carriage drove up and was startled by a wail of distress coming from without. He leaped from his bed, rushed outside and was met by his daughter-in-law who threw her arms around his neck and exclaimed, “My father, what shall I do? What shall I do?” It was a miserable night for this young woman, but before morning all was well. She received Christ as Saviour and peace came.[29]

Such occurrences while ministering in the power of God’s Word were not uncommon. In letters to his friend, Philander Parmele, Nettleton described many similar conversions. After a meeting in New Haven, Nettleton wrote:

One young man seized my hand exclaiming “I am a sinner. I am a sinner. What shall I do?” They [people at the meeting] left the house and went home sighing, & sobbing in every direction. I came home & found a number around the door of Mr. Williams’ house, in the most awful distress, Some were standing, some sitting on the ground, & some on the door steps exclaiming “What shall I do?” I shall die. I shall die. “I Can’t live.” This alarmed the neighbors who called to witness the awful scene. With much ado I got them into the house, about eight or ten in number. The fact was, the young man aforementioned, who left the meeting house in such distress, was walking in company with them, when all at once he found relief and exclaimed, “I have found the Saviour.” He was now very joyful. He sat clothed and in his right mind: and they were afraid. My first business now was to warn them against a false hope. Prayed with them and enjoined it particularly on them not to go home together, but to go alone, & be alone, for the business must be settled between God and their souls. Maria (a young woman living in this family) was one of the number. She retired to her chamber, sighing and sobbing, and crying for mercy, and exclaiming ‘I shall die, I shall die.” She came down and went out doors, and returned in the same awful distress to her chamber. And suddenly all was still and hushed to silence. I sat still below and said nothing. I soon heard the sound of her footsteps descending the chamber stairs. She opened the door and with a joyful countenance exclaimed 0, Sir, I have found the Saviour. I continued to warn her of the danger of a false hope. She exclaimed “I love Christ. I do love him. 0 how sweet.” In the morning, early, she called to see one of her anxious mates, who was so distressed the night before; and Lo: Barsheba exclaimed “I have found the Saviour.” That was a happy meeting. The young man aforementioned resided in the same family (this was John Towner’s house). On Saturday evening about midnight another, equally distressed, found relief. Within a few days 8 or 10 are rejoicing in hope. What will be the end. I know not. Do pray for us, and your friend, A. Nettleton.[30]

Such was often the nature of conversion in the days before the invitation system when the Word was boldly preached and left to do its work in souls. Many modern examples of conversions could also be given, such as that of C. S. Lewis, who, after being confronted with the truth, struggled with it until one day he was strangely converted riding in his sidecar.

The real question is: How powerful is the Word of God? Can it change men from sinners into saints without an extension of an altar call? Will it convict and convert (as God promises),or will we need to add something that helps men “settle it”? You will never be able to do without the invitation system until you are thoroughly convinced of the power of God’s Word.

2) We must urgently appeal to all men to come to Christ now

After reading this far, one may be tempted to avoid giving any appeal for people to come to Christ. Please do not misunderstand: we are under divine command to call “all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:3O). Erroll Hulse reminds us: “The preacher is free to exhort and command, to plead and implore, to reason and invite. He is an ambassador who speaks on behalf of the great King and whose purpose is to bring about reconciliation.”[31]

Allow me to note a few particulars about this responsibility.

First, our invitation must be universal. It matters not (for the purposes of this article) whether you view the atonement as limited or unlimited or whether you accept the doctrine of election or not: the scope of our appeal must be universal. Charles Spurgeon, one of the greatest evangelistic preachers, was a thorough-going Calvinist. Yet he understood that our appeal must be universal.

In one of his sermons, Spurgeon reminded his congregation about the doctrine of God’s electing some from the foundation of the world. But he noted that our task is to “preach the gospel to every creature,” not to find the elect. Spurgeon said that if God had painted a yellow stripe down the back of each of the elect, he would run up and down the streets of London, lifting up shirttails, and preaching the gospel to the elect. But, Spurgeon reminds us, God has not done so. Instead He has commanded us to “preach the gospel to every creature.” We must urgently appeal to everyone to come to Christ.

Second, our invitation must be urgent. When preaching or counseling about salvation, we must never give men the idea that repenting is something they can put off. Some who have dropped the invitation system because of its dangers have also dropped the urgent call to believe. We must say to men, “You must repent and believe the gospel.” Should they say, “But I cannot,” we must say, “But you must. God has commanded all men everywhere to repent. Your failure to do so only shows the wicked state of your heart. If you saw your sin as God sees it, you would flee to Him as the only salvation for your soul.”

John Kennedy, a nineteenth-century British minister, provides some additional instruction concerning counseling inquirers. Notice that he puts the focus of counseling inquirers on the object of their faith:

Faith [by those using the invitation system] is represented as something to be done, in order to [gain] salvation; and pains are taken to show that it is an easy thing. Better far than this would it be to see it, that those with whom they deal are truly convinced of sin, and to labour to set forth Christ before them, in his glorious completeness as a Saviour. To explain faith to them, that they may do it, is to set them still to work, though setting an easier task before them. I know well the tendency there is, at a certain stage of anxious inquiry, to ask, “What is faith, that I may do it?” It is a legalist’s work to satisfy that craving; but this is what is done in the “Inquiry-room.” “Who is He, that I may believe in him?” was the question asked by one who approached the dawning of a day of salvation. Explanations of what faith is are but trifling with souls. How different is the Scripture way! The great aim there is to “set forth” the object, not to explain the act, of faith. Let there be conviction, illumination and renewal, and faith becomes the instinctive response of the quickened soul to the presentation by God of His Christ; and, without these, no explanation of faith can be helpful to any one. The labour to explain it is too often the legal spirit. It were wiser to take pains in removing ignorance and error regarding God, and sin, and Christ. Help them know these, if you would not build them up with “untempered mortar” in a false peace. If you would be wise, as well as kind, work in that direction, rather than hurrying them to belief.[32]

We must be patient to allow the Holy Spirit to work conviction in the heart. That may happen in a few moments, a few hours, days, or even years. But we must remain imperative in our appeal. Our message and our urgency must not change-people must repent and believe today.

Finally, our invitation must call them to Christ. The focus of all the evangelistic appeals in Scripture is the same. Jesus said, “Come to Me… and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). Our appeal must be to come to Christ, not to follow any prescribed method that might cause some to equate their “coming” as coming to Him.

Conclusion

An examination of the invitation system is not an easy one. It is an emotional one. “To reduce sense of shock that some may feel, I would remind them that for well over 1800 years the Holy Spirit completed successfully all His work of saving sinners without this method. It was only with the advent of Charles Finney (1792-1875) that the ‘appeal’ as an organized method really got under way.”[33] Even then, it met with much resistance until near the end of the nineteenth century. Today it is accepted as if it was used by Jesus and Paul. Be warned—many will consider you non-evangelistic if you even question the validity of this system, much less consider no longer using it as a method to bring people to Christ.[34]

But we must be honest about the dangers that we have examined in this article. Is it not clear that the Scriptures “provide an invitation to sinners which is perfect and does not need addition?”[35] Are you concerned about asking people to do something for salvation that was never promoted in the Bible or in early church history?

Do you wish to eliminate possibilities that persons might respond to an emotional appeal or your persuasion rather than to the gospel? Do you wish to reduce the confusion that many have in equating “coming forward” with being saved?

Are you tired of seeing great numbers coming forward only to discredit the name of Christ by professing something that has no reality in their lives? Are you really concerned to see people converted—truly converted—instead of falsely assured? Then please examine this system carefully and honestly.

On the other hand, we must not confuse the invitation system with inviting people to Christ. This we must do with all urgency. “The Great Invitation of the gospel is an awesome and glorious subject. While we are in this world we should never cease making ourselves more proficient and winsome in the employment of invitations.”[36]

Still, the dangers of this system are serious. The souls of men are at stake. To be biblically evangelistic, we must be certain that what we do leads men to faith, not just to decisions.

[1] Jim Ehrhard, “The Dangers of the Invitation System,” reprinted with minor changes from Reformation and Revival 2 (Summer 1993): 75-94.

[2] By the term, the “invitation system,” I mean to include any organized method that requires people to make an outward response to a presentation of the gospel. Various expressions are used in referring to this system including “the altar call,” “the public profession,” “the public pledge,” “going down the aisle,” and “hitting the old sawdust trail.” It usually entails a “going forward” at a specified time but often may be limited to a show of hands or the signing of a decision card.

[3] Many authors have written championing the value of the invitation system. Some of these include: R. Alan Street, The Effective Invitation (NY: Fleming Revell, 1984); Leighton Ford, The Christian Persuader (NY: Harper & Row, 1966); and R. T. Kendall, Stand Up and Be Counted (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1984).

[4] While there is much debate over the precise origins of this practice, most agree that the practice came into prominence in the 1830s with the “new measures” of Charles G. Finney. Since that time, revival and evangelism have come to be largely equated with the methods devised by Finney.

[5] Billy Graham as quoted in Iain Murray, The Invitation System (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1984 reprint), 6.

[6] Billy Graham notes: “coming out… settles it and seals it…. There’s something about coming forward and standing here. It’s an outward expression of an inward decision.” Quoted in Murray, 6.

[7] The Christian, July 8, 1966, cited in Murray, 12.

[8] Quoted in Sterling W. Huston, Crusade Evangelism and the Local Church (Minneapolis: World Wide Publishing, 1984), 29.

[9]From “How Does Graham Do It?” in New Christian, June 2,1966, cited in Murray, 14.

[10] Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1971), 273.

[11] Lewis Sperry Chafer, True Evangelism, cited in Murray, 22-23.

[12] R. L. Dabney, Discussions, I: 572, cited in Murray, 27.

[13] Street, 119.

[14] Cited in Murray, 5.

[15] Ibid., 5-6.

[16] Erroll Hulse, The Great Invitation (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 1986), 99.

[17] Here Spurgeon is referring to the practice of inviting inquirers to come to a room, often called the “inquiry-room,” to hear more about their state. Unlike the invitation system which usually counsels inquirers about assurance now that they have come, the inquiry room was used to counsel about the nature of true conversion and to warn seekers about having false hopes. This can be seen in a letter from Asahel Nettleton to a friend (cited more fully below in the text) about experiences with inquirers: “My first business now [after they expressed signs of conversion] was to warn them against a false hope.” Invitation counseling today is typified in the interview that Charles Riggs (Director of Counseling at the 1966 Greater London Crusade) conducts with an inquirer: “You’ve come forward to receive Christ. How do you know that this is what you must do?” “Well, it says so in the Bible.” “Then God is saying it, isn’t He?” “Yes, I guess He is.” “And there’s no higher authority than God, is there?” “No, of course not.” “Then you accept the Word of God, don’t you?” When the answer is in the affirmative, Riggs goes on to further assure the inquirer: “Think of it like this God says it. On faith, you believe it. And that settles it.” Quoted in Murray, 78. (Note also the close connection in Riggs’s words about coming forward to receive Christ as something that the inquirer has done.)

[18] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, All Round Ministry (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1986 reprint), 372-73.

[19] The Christian Persuader, 24.

[20] Huston, 141.

[21] Ernest C. Reisinger, Today’s Evangelism (Phillipsburg, NJ: Craig Press, 1982), 76.

[22] Dabney, 566.

[23] Consult John F. Thornbury, God Sent Revival (Durham, England: Evangelical Press, 1977) for many accounts of how this contemporary of Finney was greatly used of God although he never used an invitation system.

[24] “Did You Know?” Christian History VIII (1988): 4.

[25] Quoted in Murray, 32-33.

[26] Quoted in Murray, 34.

[27] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Soul Winner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 19-20.

[28] “The Life and Death of the Rev. David Brainard” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1988 reprint), II:416-17.

[29] Thornbury, 97. Also see Bennet Tyler and Andrew Bonar, Asahel Nettleton: Life and Labours (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1996 reprint of 1954 original), 116-17.

[30] Letter to Philander Parmele, dated December 1, 1817. All grammatical errors and spellings have been retained as in the original handwritten letter.

[31] Hulse, 6.

[32] Quoted in Murray, 30.

[33] Hulse, 2.

[34] Hulse notes: “It is more or less taken for granted that all evangelists use the invitation system of calling people forward at the end of their meetings. A few, like John Blanchard, do not use it. Not to employ the method seems inconceivable to many evangelists.” Ibid., 9.

[35] Ibid., 11.

[36] Ibid., 1.

Copyright Jim Ehrhard, 1999. You are permitted to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that: (1) you credit the author; (2) any modifications are clearly marked; (3) you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction; and (4) you do not make more than 100 copies without permission.

Posted in Jim Ehrhard |

Books on Evangelism by Jim Ehrhard

January 18, 2010 by ADMIN

Most of the books published on evangelism in our century have taken a man-centered approach to evangelism rather than a God-centered approach.  What do we mean by this?  Simply that most evangelistic books focus on methods and techniques designed to secure decisions rather than emphasizing the sharing of divine revelation and the dependence on God for all the results.  Here are a few books that take a biblical approach that we can recommend to you.

Books on Evangelism:

God-Centered Evangelism by Ralph Kuiper.  This is certainly my favorite.  It provides the most thorough theology of evangelism and provides a number of excellent chapters.  We had attempted to gain permission to reprint one chapter in this issue but we did not hear from the publishers in time.  The book is published by Banner of Truth—we highly recommend it!

The Soul Winner by Charles Haddon Spurgeon.  This book, published by Eerdmans in 1963, provides some of the best teaching and preaching of Spurgeon on evangelism.  In it, Spurgeon defines soul-winning, examines the qualifications necessary to be a soul-winner, and discusses “Sermons Likely to Win Souls.”

Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God by J. I. Packer.  Published by Intervarsity Press in 1963, this book certainly qualifies as a contemporary classic on evangelism.  In it, Packer examines divine sovereignty and human responsibility as they relate to evangelism.

Books to use in Witnessing:

Come Home Forever by Tom Well (Evangelical Press).  This book is an excellent resource to give to non-believers.  In it, Wells provides a simple, yet very logical presentation of the gospel.  Tom’s other books are also excellent for learning how to provided a clear explanation of the gospel.  Also consider his book, Faith: The Gift of God  and Come to Me both give a clear explanation of biblical faith.

Peter Jeffery has also provided a number of good resources for evangelism.  His Seeking God provides a clear explanation of the gospel, written for someone seeking to understand the gospel.  My personal favorite is I Will Never Become a Christian.  This small booklet examines various objections non-believers may have toward the gospel and answers them in a clear, logical fashion.  He concludes the book with testimonies by people from many different backgrounds and occupations.  Both books are printed by The Evangelical Press of Wales.

A Bad Heart and a Bad Record by Al Martin. This short booklet is an excellent resource to share.  It clearly explains man’s dilemma and points to Christ as the only answer.  (Published through Simpson Publishing Company, Box 699, Broonton, NJ, 07005).

Wasted Faith by Jim Elliff.  This booklet causes the reader to make an honest examination of his faith to determine if it is biblical, saving faith.  This resource is especially good for those who are “nominal Chiristians” and need to examine the reality of their profession.  Jim also provides a number of other resources for evangelism, including booklets on childhood conversion, a conversation on conversion and many other resources.  You can find his Website (Christian Communicators Worldwide) through the Links page on our Website.

The Narrow Road that Leads to Life and True Godliness by Bill Nichols.  Both of these booklets are short but very clear about the gospel.  (Published by International Outreach, P.O. Box 1286, Ames, IA, 50010)

Ultimate Questions by John Blanchard.  This is an excellent resource for helping someone understand the gospel.  It is available from Evangelical Press).

Books for Church Evangelism:

Evangelism and Your Church by C. John Miller. This small paperback is one of the best resources for equipping your church in evangelism.  Miller even provided a 10-week training outline that includes readings from some of the books recommended in this article.  It was published by Presbyterian & Reformed. (not currently in print)

Tell the Truth by Will Metzger (IVP, 1981) is one of the best training manuals for God-centered evangelism.  He examines the content of the message we share, the dynamics of conversion, and the character of the people who witness.  His appendix also includes an outline for a training session in a local church.

Posted in Jim Ehrhard |

Ye Must Be Born Again by Thomas Boston

January 18, 2010 by ADMIN

For your conviction, consider these few things:

Regeneration is absolutely necessary to qualify you to do any thing really good and acceptable to God.  While you are not born again, your best works are but glittering sins; for though the matter of them is good, they are quite marred in the performance.

Consider, that without regeneration there is no faith and “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6).  Faith is a vital act of the newborn soul.  The evangelist, showing the different entertainment which our Lord Jesus had from different persons (some receiving Him, some rejecting Him) points at regenerating grace as the true cause of that difference, without which never any one would have received Him.  He tells us, that “as many as received him” were those “which were born of God” (John 1:11-13).

Unregenerate men may presume, but true faith they cannot have. Faith is a flower that grows not in the field of nature.  As the tree cannot grow without a root, neither can a man believe without the new nature, whereof the prin­ciple of believing is a part.   Without regeneration a man’s works are dead works.  As is the principle, so must the effects be: if the lungs are rotten, the breath will be unsavory; and he who at best is dead in sin, his works at best will be but dead works.  “Unto them that are defiled and unbelieving, is noth­ing pure being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work repro­bate” (Titus 1:15, 16).  If we could say of a man, that he is more blameless in his life than any other in the world, that he reduces his body with fasting and has made his knees as horns with continual praying, if he is not born again, that exception would mar all.  As if one should say, “There is a well-propor­tioned body, but the soul is gone; it is but a dead lump.”  This is a melting con­sideration.  You do many things materially good; but God says, “All these things avail not, as long as I see the old nature reigning in the man.”  “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature” (Galatians 6:15).

If you are not born again:

(1) All your reformation is naught in the sight of God. You have shut the door, but the thief is still in the house.  It may be you are not what once you were; yet you are not what you must be, if ever you see heaven; for “except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).

(2) Your prayers are an “abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 15:8). It may be, others admire your seriousness; you cry as for your life; but God accounts the opening of your mouth as one would account of the opening of a grave full of rottenness, “Their throat is an open sepulchre” (Romans 3:13).  Others are affected with your prayers, which seem to them as if they would rend the heavens; but God accounts them but as the howling of a dog: “They have not cried unto me with their hearts, when they howled upon their beds” (Hosea 7:14).  Why? — Because you are yet “in the gall of bitterness, and bond of iniq­uity!”  All your struggles against sin in your own heart and life are naught.  The proud Pharisee afflicted his body with fasting, and God struck his soul, in the mean time with a sentence of condemnation (Luke 18).  Balaam strug­gled with his covetous temper, to that degree, that though he loved the wages of unrighteousness, yet he would not win them by cursing Israel: but he died the death of the wicked (Numbers 31:8).  All you do while in an unregenerate state is for yourself: therefore it will fare with you as with a subject, who having reduced the rebels, puts the crown on his own head, and loses all his good service and his head too.

Be convinced, then, that you must be born again.  The Scripture says that the Word is the seed, whereof the new creature is formed.  Therefore take heed to it, and entertain it, as it is your life.  Apply yourself to the reading of the Scripture.  You that cannot read, get others to read it to you.  Wait diligently on the preaching of the Word, as by divine appointment the special means of con­version; for “it pleased God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe” (1 Corinthians 1:21).

Receive the testimony of the Word of God concerning the misery of an unregenerate state, the sinfulness thereof, and the absolute necessity of regeneration.  Receive its testimony concerning God, what a holy and just One He is.  Examine your ways by it; namely, the thoughts of your heart, the expressions of your lips, and the tenor of your life.  Look back through the several periods of your life; see your sins from the precepts of the Word, and learn, from its threatening, what you are liable to on account of these sins.

By the help of the same Word of God, view the corruption of your nature.  Were these things deeply rooted in the heart, they might be the seed of that fear and sorrow, on account of your soul’s state, which are nec­essary to prepare and stir you up to look after a Savior.  Fix your thoughts upon Him offered to you in the Gospel, as fully suited to your case; having, by His obedience unto death, perfectly satisfied the justice of God, and brought in everlasting righteousness.  This may prove the seed of humilia­tion, desire, hope and faith; and move you to stretch out the withered hand unto Him, at His own command.

Let these things sink deeply into your hearts, and improve them dili­gently.  Remember, whatever you are, you must be born again; else it had been better for you that you had never been born.  Wherefore, if any of you shall live and die in an unregenerate state, you will be inexcusable, having been fairly warned of your danger.

Posted in Thomas Boston |

How to Attract a Congregation by Charles Spurgeon

January 18, 2010 by ADMIN

I believe that the best, surest, and most permanent way to fill a place of worship is to preach the gospel, and to preach it in a natural, simple, interesting, earnest way. The gospel itself has a singularly fascinating power about it, and unless impeded by an unworthy delivery, or by some other great evil, it will win its own way.  It certainly did so at the first, and what is to hinder it now?  Like the angels, it flew upon its own wings; like the dew, it tarried not for man, neither waited for the sons of men.  The Lord gave the word; great was the company of them that published it; their line went forth throughout all the world, and the nations heard the glad tidings from heaven.

The gospel has a secret charm about it which secures a hearing: it casts its good spell over human ears, and they must hearken.  It is God’s own word to men; it is precisely what human necessities require; it commends itself to man’s conscience, and, sent home by the Holy Spirit, it wakes an echo in every heart.

In every age, the faithful preaching of the good news has brought forth hosts of men to hear it, made willing in the day of God’s power.  I shall need a vast amount of evidence before I shall come to the conclusion that its old power is gone.  My own experience does not drive me to such a belief, but leads me in the opposite direction.  Thirty years of crowded houses leave me confident of the attractions of divine truth: I see nothing as yet to make me doubt its sufficiency for its own propagation.  Shorn of its graciousness, robbed of its certainty, spoiled of its peculiarities, the sacred word may become unattractive; but decked in the glories of free and sovereign grace, wearing the crown–royal of the covenant, and the purple of atonement, the gospel, like a queen, is still glorious for beauty, supreme over hearts and minds.  Published in all its fulness, with a clear statement of its efficacy and immutability, it is still the most acceptable news that ever reached the ears of mortals.  You shall not in my most despondent moments convince me that our Lord was mistaken when he said, “If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto myself.”

Edited from The Sword and the Trowel (August, 1883).

Posted in C. H. Spurgeon |

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »