C. H. Spurgeon & the "PUBLIC INVITATION SYSTEM"

DID HE OPPOSE IT'S USE?

by BOB L. ROSS

>> Receive a $100.00 REWARD For Proof of His Opposition! <<

(see announcement further below)

From a message dated 5/18/2004, where a brother responds to my emails, asking. . .

Dear Bob:

"So your understanding of Charles Spurgeon is that he would have endorsed a public invitation system? I am asking because I am ignorant of what Spurgeon actually did. I was always told that there were probably more people saved under Spurgeon's ministry than any other (including Billy Graham), and Spurgeon never gave a public invitation (an altar call where people came to the front to trust in Christ). He just continually invited people to trust in Christ throughout his messages."

The "public invitation system" as we know it, and have seen it practiced today, is so varied in its wide use by so many different groups and persons that one could hardly define it to the complete satisfaction of every one.

I know that I, for one, do not accept the distorted definitions given to it by those who oppose its use in any and every way. For example, who would agree with one of the Reformed Baptist pastors in England who opposes public invitations that this practice is a "new evangelical sacrament?" Who among the Baptist preachers of today regard the public invitation as a "sacrament?" The pastor obviously violates the laws of polemics when he makes such an attribution as that, unless he knows a person or persons who affirm that position.

I have no doubt that Spurgeon would no more endorse many forms of its use than do we. We all, perhaps, have seen it abused merely as device to get some sort of response. There is no need here to offer illustrations of this type of abuse, for I'm sure that few if any on my list are not acquainted with such abuses.

But we must remember, the abuse of some method or practice does not constitute its invalidation. The legal and appropriate use of a gun to hunt game is not invalidated by the use made of a gun to commit murder.

If it were the case that abuse invalidates, then we could hardly use television, radio, the Internet, or the printed page as mediums of communicating the Gospel and Biblical truth. Also, the abusive waste of church monies in building elaborate church edifices, their expensive and embellishing interior decoration, and their use for purposes other than Bible-related activities, would invalidate our constructing a church building.

For example, the use of an indoor baptistery to baptize persons as a means of salvation does not invalidate the use of an indoor baptistery for the proper purpose.

The public invitation is used by those who preach the Gospel and devote a reasonable period of time at the close of the service to invite those in the audience to respond to:
    (1) confess Christ as Savior,
    (2) request church membership or transfer of membership,
    (3) request further counsel on the way of salvation, or
    (4) to relate some matter which might benefit from congregational prayer or counsel.

— I doubt that Spurgeon would have any objection to these uses.    

In two articles previously circulated by email [available upon request], I cited instances recorded in Spurgeon's magazine, THE SWORD AND THE TROWEL, of the methods used by two preachers who were prominent members of Spurgeon's Society of Evangelists — J. Manton Smith and W. Y. Fullerton, and if he did not endorse those methods, then we wonder why he promoted these evangelists, raised money for their support, published news of their meetings and schedule, and used them in campaigns at the Tabernacle. They clearly used various forms of inviting a public and immediate response to the Gospel. Enquiry rooms, raising hands, at least one reference to an "invitation," people standing up in the audience, people making oral responses to questions, and references to decisions, seekers, inquirers, etc. are all characteristics of the meetings which I cited as reported in Spurgeon's magazine, The Sword and the Trowel.

Perhaps of even greater significance to me is the fact I have never read objections to public invitations in Spurgeon's sermons, books, or magazine, and I have never seen Spurgeon quoted as specifically objecting to "invitations," "public invitations," or "the invitation system."

Certain negative quotes from Spurgeon about methods are indeed offered by some, and then arbitrarily applied to public invitations, but those quotes do not specify "public invitations."

One writer, for example, alleges: "Charles Spurgeon often warned against the invitation system, even in his public preaching to the lost." [See $100 REWARD Note following this article].

Yet this brother does not give any reference to where Spurgeon said this. If Spurgeon mentioned "the invitation system," where did he mention it? We want to read it in context, if he said it, and see if he is being properly represented, or if his remark is simply against a specific abuse.

I invite anyone who reads this to refer me to the place in Spurgeon where he mentions "the invitation system," and I will be happy to publish his comment so that all may read it and interpret it for themselves.

I thoroughly researched the Internet in recent times about the opposition offered to the "public invitation," and I have yet to find a quotation offered from Spurgeon in which he refers to the "public invitation"or "the invitation system." Has any writer offered such a quote from Spurgeon?

It's true, CHS cautioned against an overemphasis on certain methods which might be abusive or become abusive, but he also vocalized the same type of caution against the abusive use of some other practices. Yet I have yet to see him totally reject something of this sort which could be used in an acceptable manner.

I hope this answer is satisfactory. I do not profess to "know it all" about Spurgeon. I often ask others if they have answers to questions about him, and when Brother Eric Hayden (a former pastor of Spurgeon's Tabernacle from 1956 to 1961) was alive I would very frequently write and ask him questions. I talked at length with him at his home in Newent, Gloucestershire in 1996, and he was not aware of any rejection by Spurgeon of invitations. He himself learned many things about Spurgeon and his work from Grandfather Hayden who was a member of the Tabernacle under Spurgeon's ministry. In Mr. Hayden's last work on Spurgeon, THE UNFORGETTABLE SPURGEON,  he discusses Spurgeon on "Evangelists and Enquirers" in chapter 11, and he cites no reference to Spurgeon's opposing "invitations" or "the invitation system."

In a recent article sent to my email list, I cited the Tabernacle-sponsored Society of Evangelists, with the missions or campaigns by the team of evangelists J. Manton Smith, W. Y. Fullerton, and others. Such effort, instigated by Spurgeon, indicates his great interest in promoting aggressive forms of evangelistic outreach, aimed at getting immediate responses or decisions on the part of those who heard the Gospel. In the case cited in the 1889 Sword and Trowel magazine of the 9-day campaign held at the Tabernacle, the ministry of the Evangelists netted hundreds of professions alternately referred to as "converts, decisions, and inquirers."

Every monthly issue of Spurgeon's magazine, in the "Notes" section, Spurgeon published REPORTS about the work of these two Evangelists as well as about the work others like them. Mention is made of several other Evangelists, the places where missions were held, the attendances, the blessings upon the services, and the number of "decisions," "inquirers," and "converts."

Here is another sample of one of the many reports published by Spurgeon about a campaign by Fullerton and Smith [taken from the October 1889 issue of The Sword and the Trowel, page 533] —

Mr. J. E. K. Studd sends us the following cheering account of Messrs. Fullerton and Smith's services at the Polytechnic, Regent Street. . .

"My Dear Sir: It is with much pleasure that I enclose you a cheque for 30 pounds as a thank-offering for the services lately held here by your evangelists, Messrs. Fullerton and Smith. They have spent the last four Saturdays and Sundays with us; and the services throughout have not only been most enjoyable and well-attended, but we have had the added pleasure of see many young men and young women deciding for Christ, and confessing him before their friends.

"Last night, being the closing one of the mission, our hall was not nearly large enough to contain those who wished to attend; and at the close of this service, when those who had decided for Christ during the past month were asked to signify it by standing up, quite a number did so, and many more joined them when an INVITATION was given to those who wished to DECIDE the question to do so.

"You will, I know, be glad to hear that we are also holding meetings for the converts every Wednesday evening, and these have been steadily increasing in numbers, until last Wednesday, the converts, together with one or two Christian workers, must have numbered over a hundred."

In the latter part of 1889, Spurgeon engaged Smith and Fullerton for another week's campaign at the Metropolitan Tabernacle. The report on this mission was published in Spurgeon's "Notes" column in The Sword and the Trowel of January 1990.

Among the several details related about the first evening, Monday, November 18, in response to the message by Evangelist Fullerton, it is said, "Some few held up their hands in token that they desired the prayers of God's people, and others stayed behind to be spoken to by the workers who were watching for souls" (page 43).

Of the Tuesday evening meeting, it is said, "More seekers than on Monday."

On Wednesday evening, "Many were touched and blessed," and on Thursday evening, "Subject: 'The Blood of Jesus.' The flock of enquirers, the joyful workers, and even the increased offering, bore witness to the fact that this glorious subject has lost none of its power."

On Friday, "The interest, and the spirituality, steadily increased from meeting to meeting. We are persuaded that only a very small proportion of those who were impressed entered the enquiry-rooms."

On Saturday, "The weather kept clear until some one to two thousand children got in to hear Mr. Smith . . . Speaking of the mission in general, and of Saturday's Children's Meeting in particular, an earnest brother writes: 'I believe many have been turned from the error of theirs ways, and are now "looking unto Jesus." Children of tender age, and folk of ripened years, have felt the softening, subduing, attractive power of Jesus' love.'"

On Sunday, November 24 [1889]: "The Spirit pricked many to the heart; scores rose in different parts of the building, declaring their desire to be Christ's; and afterwards the Lecture-hall was filled with those who had been blessed during the week, seekers and workers, another meeting going on at the same time in the Tabernacle. It was most touching, in the quiet meeting in the Lecture-hall, to watch many scores of people rising, one after another, and, in response to the question, whether they would be Christ's, coupled with many admonitions to avoid rashness, saying, 'I will,' 'I will." Few dry eyes were in the meeting."

Spurgeon once said that the entire time of his ministry at the Tabernacle was one extended period of continuous revival. Converts and baptisms were taking place weekly. And there is little "secret" why this was the case: Spurgeon's primary emphasis was upon getting the Gospel out to the unsaved by "all means" and urging them to come to Christ. His entire ministry of preaching, publishing, training ministers, sponsoring Evangelists and Colporteurs, furnishing homes for orphans, and supporting missionaries was to win men to Christ. — Bob L. Ross

   >  A $100.00 REWARD FOR INFORMATION!  <

NOTE: I am offering a $100.00 REWARD to the first person who can present a statement by C. H. Spurgeon where he ever stated opposition to "the invitation system," as alleged by the writer of an article on "The Altar Call" (appears on various websites). This offer also applies to articles by other writers who have alleged that Spurgeon was opposed to the use of "public invitations." — Bob L. Ross (May 2004), EMAIL: pilgrimpub@aol.com

.

 

NOTES OF INTEREST

by Bob L. Ross

A Reply Regarding

IAIN MURRAY'S

Anti-Public Invitation Booklet:

The Invitation System

Regarding a message dated 5/20/2004,

where a brother sent me an email inquiry about "public invitations". . .

Dear Bob:

"Many of my concerns were confirmed and are addressed in The Banner of Truth booklet, The Invitation System, by Iain Murray. It is an excellent resource for anyone wishing to explore this issue further."

I have privately replied to this inquirer, but as a matter of possible interest to others, I would like to go a little further and comment on the particular reference to Mr. Iain Murray's booklet. It was one of the first in modern times, as I recall, to question the validity of the use of public invitations. Since then, others have followed, in addition to anti-public invitations on websites, but most of these materials are inclined merely to be repetitious of Mr. Murray's objections and thinking. I suspect he may qualify as the "father" of the modern opposition to public invitations among Reformed brethren.

[NOTE: I have previously published three email articles sent to my list in reply to many anti-public invitation writings which appear on the Internet. These website articles embody the same type of objections offered by Mr. Murray in his booklet; in fact, there are quotes used from Mr. Murray. It is not my purpose here to repeat what I have already written in response to the objections raised, but rather I am commenting on other matters that reveal the Pedobaptist affiliation and theology of Mr. Murray which to a great extent, I believe, is at the foundation of his opposition to invitations. These articles are available upon request].

I would not have half the dissatisfaction with Mr. Murray's writings if he did not so often attempt to put Spurgeon into the saddle of certain hobbyhorses, or make him ride the "ponies" of Mr. Murray's own theoretical merry-go-round. As long as he does that, we will be tempted to "have our say." Since we are devoted to publishing Spurgeon's works, whether we chose to do so or not, we are often expected to exonerate Spurgeon when it is perceived that he is being erroneously appropriated in the interest of peccadilloes or peculiarities.

I am neither envious of Mr. Murray's views and practices, nor opposed to his right to their propagation and use, but I do wish he would see his way clear to at least try to make them go upon their own wheels rather than attempt to hitch an illegitimate ride on the step of C. H. Spurgeon's carriage.

With all due respect and gratitude to Mr. Murray for his publication work at The Banner of Truth [Scotland] for many very wonderful and valuable reprints of old books — many which we are happy to stock in our local Pilgrim Book Store [Pasadena TX] — it must be remembered by those of us who are Baptists that Mr. Murray, after all, is not a Baptist, and he advocates PEDOBAPTISM (the baptism of infants). To assume that this fact would have no bearing upon his opinions on — or his opposition to — public invitations, I think, may be very charitable but highly unlikely. If the views held by Brother Murray are in fact true, that would certainly make a public invitation a rather superfluous, useless practice — especially in consideration of the claims made in some categories of the Reformed soteriology as to the supposed pre-faith regeneration of infants.

Baptists, hamstrung as they are by their view of the baptism of believers only, do not have the luxury of extending an invitation to believing parents to bring forth their offspring and present them for baptism, so we are shut up to another type of invitation which would naturally not be palatable to the Pedobaptists who consider themselves regenerated in infancy.

The Reformed view, as only they would define it, involves some peculiar relation to the baptizing of infants and supposes that the infant offspring of believers are in a special "covenant" relationship with God, and as such the offspring stand to inherit all the blessings of the supposed covenant. Somehow, they manage to find this "covenant" as a continuity of the Abrahamic covenant of the Old Testament, by which infants supposedly  have the right to baptism in place of circumcision, and church membership in the place of being a member of the nation of Old Testament Israel.

Louis Berkhof, whose Systematic Theology Mr. Murray promotes and publishes, alleges that such children of the covenant have "new life" implanted in them "long before they are physically able to hear the call of the gospel" [page 471], and that "they receive the seed of regeneration long before they come to years of discretion" [page 472]. This is the genesis form of the "pre-faith new birth" theory. Berkhof refers to it as being a "hyper-physical" work of the Holy Spirit. How he discerns this, he does not tell, nor does he offer any scriptural precedent for it.

Berkhof says, however, that "Reformed theologians" hold that "it is possible to proceed on the assumption (not the certain knowledge) that the children offered in baptism are regenerated and are therefore in possession of the semen fidei (the seed of faith)" [pages 641, 642].

I think this concept must certainly be contributory to the "pre-faith new birth" theory advocated by some Reformed writers and Hardshell Baptists, but it is not the Confessional or Creedal view on the subject, as admitted by Berkhof . The theory espoused by Louis Berkhof and some others of our time is — according to Berkhof — not in accord with the views of Luther, Calvin, the Confessions, and seventeenth century writers (Puritans) [Systematic Theology, pages 466, 468, 470, 476]. Its thesis is that the use of the Word is not an essential means in the Spirit's work of regeneration [Systematic Theology, pages 471-476]. This conflicts with the Confessions.

I do not know when Mr. Murray professes that he received the "seed of regeneration," but I do know that there are those who accept the non-creedal Reformed view set forth by Berkhof as being descriptive of their own experience. They obviously believe that they have been Christians at least ever since they were baptized as babies. I have personally heard such professions in conversation with some who were baptized in infancy.

I recall a personal discussion I had years ago [late 1950s] with the late Reformed theologian, Dr. Lorraine Boettner, on this matter when he paid me a visit at my bookstore (while I lived in Ashland, Kentucky). Dr. Boettner said that he had no recollection of when it was that he became a conscious believer in Christ for salvation subsequent to his baptism as an infant. That Dr. Boettner at the time of our discussion was certainly a believer in Christ and a Christian, I have not the slightest reason to doubt or deny; but that he was regenerated in infancy, I do have reason to doubt and deny. Had he not been Reformed in his theology as to infants, I think he probably could have cited some subsequent time in his early life as when he first became an actual conscious believer in Christ. Certainly, that time did exist, for Dr. Boettner obviously did become a conscious believer in the Son of God and His salvation by grace years after his infant baptism.

It is understandable that the advocates of the Reformed view on infants would not have much use for an indiscriminate public invitation, for it might be the occasion of creating doubt in the minds of some as to whether they were indeed born again as infants. They might tend to think, as I did, that although as a youngster I had received baptism on Easter Sunday in accordance with the Methodist Church's practice, I became convicted that I was not really a converted person. This led to repentance, and I responded to an invitation to publicly confess Jesus Christ as Saviour.

In view of Mr. Murray's attachment to Pedobaptism, if Mr. Murray is the fountain of the anti-invitation thesis from which the reader is drinking, he might take what is said by Mr. Murray against public invitations with a "grain of salt."

In fact, we have often found reason to take what Mr. Murray says with "grains of salt." He alleges, for example, that C. H. Spurgeon's views were "moulded" by Joseph Alleine's Alarm to the Unconverted, when the fact is Spurgeon described Alleine as a "better preacher of the law than the gospel," and that reading the book was "like sitting at the foot of Sinai." [For Spurgeon's various remarks on the book, see the Autobiography, Volume 1, pages 68, 80, 104; also the sermon #531 — The Warrant of Faith, MTP Vol 9, Year 1863, pg. 531, 1 John 3:23]

Mr. Murray has also not infrequently overstated the case on Spurgeon in the matter of nit-picking of certain terminology. In his book, The Forgotten Spurgeon, for example, Murray mixes Spurgeon's name in with his criticism of the expressions, "open your heart" and "decide for Christ," which according to Murray are expressions coined by "Arminianism" [pages 95].

Yet these phrases were frequently used by Spurgeon, and he even has a sermon entitled, "An Open Heart For a Great Saviour," in which he says —

"It is perfectly true that the work of salvation lies first and mainly in Jesus receiving sinners to himself, to pardon, to cleanse, to sanctify, to preserve, to make perfect; but, at the same time, the sinner also receives Christ; there is an act on the sinner’s part by which, being constrained by divine grace, he openeth his heart to the admission of Jesus Christ, and Jesus enters in, and thenceforth dwells in the heart, and reigns and rules there. To a gracious readiness of heart to entertain the friend who knocks at the door, we are brought by God the Holy Ghost, and then he sups with us and we with him." [sermon #669 — An Open Heart For a Great Saviour, MTP Vol 12, Year 1866, page 13, John 1:12-13]

In another sermon appeal, Spurgeon said —

"Oh I wish some of you would thus respond to my appeal this day! This thing is also from the Lord: it was he who gave me this message; it was he who brought you to hear it. Surely you will not be found fighting against God. Your heart is open to him; he sees the faintest desire that you have toward him. Breathe out your wish now, and say, 'My heart is before thee: take it.' " [sermon #2231 — An Urgent Request For an Immediate Answer, MTP Vol 37, Year 1891, page 599, Genesis 24:49]

On the matter of "decision," it might be well for Mr. Murray to consider Spurgeon's remarks in the sermon above, "An Urgent Request for an Immediate Answer" [see volume reference in above paragraph]. In this sermon, Spurgeon addresses his hearers, "But we are the more determined to press you for some DECISION,"and "I pray that God's Spirit may lead you to an immediate DECISION." [pages 596, 599]

In recent articles which I've emailed about Spurgeon's Society of Evangelists and the reports he gave in The Sword and the Trowel magazine of their meetings, I have cited a few of the many references to the "decisions" which were made in those campaigns.

In the same sermon #2231 [above], Spurgeon urges his hearers to "accept Christ" [page 16], which is another expression which we have sometimes seen classified by some as being "Arminian." Yet Spurgeon did not find that use of this phrase was taboo because it is used by Arminians! After all, did not Paul say that the truth is worthy of "all acceptation?" [1 Timothy 1:15; 4:9]

Again, if Mr. Murray did not try to put Spurgeon on his hobbyhorses, I would not care to comment upon his using or not using whatever phrases he chooses. But please, let us not see such phantasmagoria as Bro. Murray presents attributed to Spurgeon, whose Calvinism did not so restrict him to expressions authorized and approved by Reformed writers and theologians of whatever their stripe.

I believe, most firmly, in the doctrines commonly called Calvinistic, and I hold them to be very fraught with comfort to God’s people; but if any man shall say that the preaching of these is the whole of the preaching of the gospel, I am at issue with him.

Brethren, you may preach those doctrines as long as you like, and yet fail to preach the gospel; and I will go further, and affirm that some who have even denied those truths, to our great grief, have nevertheless been gospel preachers for all that, and God has saved souls by their ministry. . .

Preach Christ, young man, if you want to win souls. Preach all the doctrines, too, for the building up of believers, but still the main business is to preach Jesus who came into the world to seek and to save that which was lost. . .

This simple truth, that “Jesus Christ has come to seek and to save that which is lost,” and that “whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life,” must be your jewel, your treasure, your life.

[Quotations above from sermon #786 — The Great Mystery of Godliness,

MTP Vol 13, Year 1867, 1 Timothy 3:16]

"C. H. Spurgeon earnestly exhorted those who had accepted Christ as their Saviour to come forward amongst his people and avow their attachment to His person and name. Words of kindly encouragement and of loving persuasiveness, were addressed to the timid and retiring ones, who feared to avow themselves to be the Lord's lest they should fall back into sin and dishonor His name. This was followed by an appeal to those who had confessed the name of Jesus — an appeal of so stirring and searching a nature, that many must have felt constrained to say, 'Lord what wilt thou have me to do?' Prayer for more earnest living, abiding, practical godliness, followed this address." — The Sword and The Trowel Magazine, 1865, pg. 70

 Author: Bob L. Ross

.

Continues  with:   [Article #2]

  >>  Was C. H. Spurgeon the Innovator of the Modern Public or Church Invitation?  <<  

 

.

  E-Mail:  CATALOG REQUEST or FEEDBACK

         http://www.pilgrimpublications.com/invite1.htm

LAST MODIFIED  August 17 - 2004

TOP  OF  PAGE

.