Jesus repeatedly ran into the opposition of the Pharisees and scribes when He violated some of their man-made traditions. "And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." There is a present-day tradition, which crept into the church almost two centuries ago, called the "Altar Call." There is no place in scripture where it is either commanded or illustrated, yet is has become sacrosanct. To oppose it is to be considered unevangelistic and heretical. How did men become believers in the Old Testament era? It certainly was not at an old-fashioned altar. The New Testament is silent on the matter. It is touted as that means by which men must publicly express their faith in Christ. If that is true, then there really is no purpose for baptism.
It is supported from such passages as Matthew 10:32,33, which says, "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." The context of these verses has nothing to do with the altar call. It has to do with believers being called before the tribunals of men to give an account of their faith. When the squeeze is put on them to either put up or shut up, those who are true to the faith will confess Christ before men.
The modern usage of the altar call finds its roots in the Second Great Awakening (c. 1787-1825). It was Charles Finney that popularized the technique. Its genesis was in the practice of the "anxious seat." The great revivalist, Asahel Nettleton, opposed the measure. Under Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield during the First Great Awakening (c.1725-60), the techniques known as the "anxious seat" or "inquiry room" were noticeably absent.
The purpose of all evangelism is to call men to Christ. The public confession of a positive response to the call is in the waters of baptism!
Is the altar call effective?--Yes! Is it effectual?--No! What I mean by that is that it does get results. Certain churches and evangelists now have it down to a science as to how it works. It is a psychological tool used in crowd control.
The difference between the effectual call and the altar call is that the first is a work of the Spirit, while the latter is an invention of men. The effectual call is that internal work of the Spirit whereby He calls men out of darkness into light, out of death to life, out of bondage to freedom, and out of sin to righteousness by His omnipotent, albeit silent, voice in the hearts and minds of men. Cannot the Spirit of God be trusted to accomplish the work of redemption? That which Christ purchased, surely the Spirit will apply. While one may escape an altar call, he will never escape the effectual call..."All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" (John 6:37). Not everyone who responds to an altar call is effectually called. The effectual call in inherently spiritual. It does not depend on the devices of men for its results.
The history of modern revivalism testifies to the casualties that have been left in the wake of the altar call. In later years, after Finney had been in western New York, the area was called "the Burnt Over district."
Joseph Foote writes, "During the ten years hundreds and perhaps thousands were annually reported to be converted on all hands, but now it is admitted, that his (Finney's) real converts were comparatively few. It is declared even by himself that 'the great body of them are a disgrace to religion'; as a consequence of their defections, practical evils, great, terrible, and innumerable, are in various quarters rushing in on the church."
The reality of conversion is not tested by some initial physical response, but by its long-term effects in one's perseverance in the faith. The effectual call produces genuine lasting results not to be repented of."