ISMS, SCHISMS,
& ALTAR CALLS

Was Moody an Arminian? Sometimes we get the impression that the Church was once all Calvinistic, but has all but gone totally Arminian. Actually, Arminianism has been around since the Garden of Eden! Spurgeon (a Calvinist) found election to be a soul-winning doctrine, while today's big name soul-winners (Arminian) have little use for it.

Dwight L. Moody was a contemporary of Spurgeon, and also a great soul winner. It has been said that Moody was unusual in that he was neither Calvinistic nor Arminian. While it is my view that this observation would make him an Arminian by default, his Arminian methods such as calling for an outward response to his invitation would indicate at least an Arminian leaning. Forgive me, Mr. Moody, if I'm wrong.

Methodology Stems from Theology

The confusion lies not in "was Moody an Arminian?" but in "what is Arminianism?" If we go by the modern erroneous notion that Arminianism is merely a denial of eternal security, and that Calvinism is merely an assent to it, then Moody was a Calvinist. When he said, "I am an Arminian to the Cross; after the Cross, a Calvinist,"[footnote: Moody, W.R., Moody, (1930), p. 437.] Moody was undoubtedly referring to free will (Arminianism), and eternal security (Calvinism). But when we find out what Arminianism (and Calvinism for that matter) really is, we may well reclassify Moody with the Arminians.

What is Arminianism? A. A. Hodge hits the nail on the head with the following statement:

The only question which touches the true matter in debate is, What is the ground of the eternal predestination of individuals to salvation? Is it the foreseen faith and repentance of the individuals themselves, or the sovereign good pleasure of God? Every Christian must take one side or the other of this question. If he takes the side which makes foreseen faith the ground, he is an Arminian no matter what else he holds. If he takes the side which makes the good pleasure of God the ground, he is a Calvinist.[footnote: Hodge, A.A., Outlines of Theology, p. 217.]

Let's let him speak for himself. The following dialogue took place in 1884 (approximately), between Mr. Moody and Marcus Rainsford, a British evangelical preacher and writer, in front of a large congregation:

Mr. M. Suppose a man says he is not elected?
Mr. R. Do you remember the story of the woman of Canaan? Poor soul, she had come a long journey. She asked the Lord to have mercy on her afflicted child. He wanted to try her faith, and He said: "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." That looked as if He Himself told her that she was not one of the elect. But she came and worshiped Him, saying, "Lord, help me!" and He helped her there and then (Matt. 15:22-28). No; there is no election separating between the sinner and Christ.
Mr. M. Say that again.
Mr. R. THERE IS NO ELECTION SEPARATING BETWEEN THE SINNER AND CHRIST.[footnote: Rainsford, Marcus. Our Lord Prays for His Own. Chicago: Moody Press. page 252.]

The reason I have cited this example from Moody is that most common use of the doctrine of election by evangelicals is that of reassuring sinners that they need not worry about it. Moody "believed that the world had nothing to do with that word election; it was only intended for the church, not for the unconverted"[footnote: Goodspeed, Rev. E.J. A Full History of the Wonderful Career of Moody and Sankey in Great Britain and America. St. Louis: N. D. Thompson, 1877. page 331.] Oh? So we’re to proclaim something less than all the council of God? If we left election out of the gospel proclamation, the result is a sinner who, instead of falling prostrate before the sovereign will of a sovereign God, is forced to look to his own "free" will. And that is disastrous.

McLoughlin cites Moody engaged in a typical refutation of divine sovereignty:

"We are free agents. God allows us to choose." The doctrines of innate depravity and predestined election were nonsense. When a man said "I am so constituted I can't believe," Moody told him, "Men can believe if they will. It is not because men cannot believe; it is because they will not believe." And he offered the same refutation of "cannot-ism" that Finney did: "Do you think God would command us to do something we could not do and then punish us eternally for not doing it? Away with such a doctrine as that! He would be an unjust God ."[footnote: Moody, Great Redemption, pp. 284, 314, 94, cited by McLoughlin Jr., Wm. G., Modern Revivalism: Charles Grandison Finney to Billy Graham. New York: Ronald Press, 1959, p. 248.]

Moody and Free Will

To the after-meeting Moody explained four words: Receive Him, believe Him, trust Him, take Him. Who will take Him? he cried. Who will say "I will?" Several responded among the general audience. An atheist shouted "I won't." Moody, compassionate almost to tears, sobbed: It's "I will" or "I won't" for every man in this hall to-night. He spoke of the Prodigal Son's decision: “I will arise and go to my father.” ‘The battle is on the will, men,’ he said, and only there. When the young man said "I will arise" the battle was won, for he had yielded his will, and on that point all hangs to-night. Men, you have your champion there who said "I won’t!" I want every man who believes that man is right to rise and say: "I won't take Him." Not a man moved. Moody continued: Thank God! No man says "I won’t." Now who'll say "I will", who will take Christ as Saviour, who will take Him? A long pause. Then: One of the atheists, said Moody telling the story, called out "I will take Him!" It was a bombshell in their midst. Some were violent in anger as the meeting closed. But the backbone of atheism in the club received a terrible twist. I met the man who decided to Christ and found him an intelligent mechanic, and fully turned to God.[footnote: J.C. Pollock, Moody Without Sankey, London: Hodder and Stoughton, p. 212.]

But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father?

The question becomes not "Was Moody an Arminian?", but rather "What saith the scripture?" It's not a matter of whether or not we believe certain pet doctrines; it is whether or not we believe the Bible.

Reader Response

I appreciate the hard work that obviously is involved in each issue of the Kingdom Digest. Your diligence in faithfully maintaining this publication is commendable. Nevertheless I must express my strong opposition to the editorial printed in the March-April 1984 edition.

In an attempt to depict D. L. Moody as an Arminian, I believe you have committed several errors in logic and at one point transcended the bounds of Scriptural conduct. According to your article, Mr. Moody could not have avoided being either a Calvinist or an Arminian because such an appearance of neutrality would place him in the latter camp by default. If a person were said to be neither conservative nor liberal, would he automatically be a liberal? I am at a loss to comprehend why everyone must wear one of two labels. People agreeing with your position regarding election are given the stamp of acceptance, Calvinist; people differing with you are branded Arminian. While my personal view of election is in unity with yours, I do not understand how that makes me a Calvinist. Would Mr. Calvin have been so vain as to demand that all who sided with his view of Scripture bear his name?

The habit of name-clinging was condemned by the Apostle Paul in I Corinthians 1:11-13, where he wrote against such needlessly divisive attachments. While such terms as Calvinist or Arminian certainly are useful as descriptive terms, it seems an unfortunate act to insist upon their use as identifications for Biblicists or heretics respectively. The nature of Arminius’ view makes the employment of his name concerning another person or group a serious matter. The editorial states that anyone who would expect an outward response to a public invitation has "at least an Arminian leaning." Why must this be so? If Scripture does not necessitate such an invitation, where does it forbid it? It might be loosely argued that several key sermons delivered in the book of Acts constitute public invitations in the sense that the speakers certainly trusted God for a response. At any rate it appears careless to assert that Moody or anyone else had or has Arminian tendencies for the "crime" of giving an invitation. This is false syllogism at its shakiest.

I am disappointed to see a great servant of God put down when he is quite unable to defend himself. Though Mr. Moody was by no means without fault, the evidence presented in the article is hardly sufficient to entomb him with the Arminians. Portraying Moody as an egomaniac who "revelled" in "getting large numbers of people to stand to their feet at his invitation" enters the forbidden realm described in I Timothy 6:4. To say that Moody’s "ultimate aim" was an "outward response" clearly is to surmise evil. When the Kingdom Digest is at its best it is an edifying source of spiritual growth. Unfortunately, the March-April 1984 editorial was not in this category.

Respectfully
Charles Bey
Janesville

[Reply from the Editor:

Do I think we shall ever see John Wesley in heaven? Well, I do not think we shall--the reason why we shall not see him is this, I am afraid that you and I will be so far off the throne of Christ, and Wesley will be so near, that he will be lost in the brightness of his Saviour, and I hardly think you and I will be able to see him.[footnote: Cited by Spurgeon in The Two Wesleys, Pasadena, TX: Pilgrim Publications, page 6.]

I fully admit the seriousness of the objection. I do not pretend either to explain the charge away, or to defend his objectionable opinions. Personally, I feel unable to account for any well-instructed Christian holding such doctrines as perfection and the defectibility of grace, or denying such as election and the imputed righteousness of Christ.

But, after all, we must beware that we do not condemn men too strongly for not seeing all things in our point of view, or excommunicate and anathematize them because they do not pronounce our shibboleth. It is written in God's Word, "Why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother?" We must think and let think. We must learn to distinguish between things that are of the essence of the gospel and things which are of the perfection of gospel. We may think that a man preaches an imperfect gospel who denies election, considers justification to be nothing more than forgiveness, and tells believers in one sermon that they may attain perfection in this life, and in another sermon that they may entirely fall away from grace. But if the same man strongly and boldly exposes and denounces sin, clearly and fully lifts up Christ, distinctly and openly invites men to believe and repent, shall we dare to say that the man does not preach the gospel at all? Shall we dare to say that he will do no good? I, for one, cannot say so, at any rate. If I am asked whether I prefer Whitefield's gospel or Wesley’s, I answer at once that I prefer Whitefield’s: I am a Calvinist, and not an Arminian. But if I am asked to go further, and to say that Wesley preached no gospel at all, and did no real good, I answer at once that I cannot do so. That Wesley would have done better if he could have thrown off his Arminianism, I have not the least doubt; but that he preached the gospel, honoured Christ, and did extensive good, I no more doubt than I doubt my own existence.[footnote: Ryle, J.C., Christian Leaders of the Eighteenth Century. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust. pages 85-86.]

This is similar to my stance with Moody. The difference is that Moody would probably disavow his own Arminianism and Wesley would admit to his. I share this bewilderment. The only gospel I knew for eleven years was the Arminian gospel and it failed to slay my efforts at self-salvation. When I finally learned the Biblical (Calvinist) gospel, my eyes were turned from self and fixed on a sovereign God and Christ, my only hope. So I equate Arminianism with false gospels and heresy, and hate it with a passion wherever it turns up. And yet I must admit that there are thousands of sincere Christians whom I would categorize Arminian, and yet not so Arminian as to be devoid of salvation like I was.

The scripture that tells me that "Love thinks no evil" should be a guideline for us all, but sometimes that love means that we need to wound as well as to sooth. "Faithful are the wounds of a friend." True, Moody is gone. But my real subject is modern evangelism, not Moody.

Why Everyone Must Wear One of Two Labels

But "Calvinist" and "Arminian" are merely nicknames. A nickname is a label affixed by another party. This has nothing to do with the Corinthian practice condemned in 1 Corinthians 1. We find an example of nicknaming in Acts 11:26: "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Though my editorial was sketchy, I was careful to define what I meant by both "Arminianism" and "Calvinism." Hodge’s statement, to my thinking, seems to ring true. It doesn't matter what else you may believe, if you believe in an election rooted in God's sovereign pleasure, you could be nicknamed a Calvinist.

Conversely, if you believe in an election based on man's choice (or foreseen faith), you could be nicknamed an Arminian. Perhaps I should add the qualifying statement, "on your view of election." Since you say that your view of election is in unity with mine, then according to the definition I would call you a Calvinist. It is merely a convenient label of theological classification.

Is it just that "name-clinging" is repugnant to you, or do you adhere to some middle-ground somewhere between the two labels? From what you have written, I think the former is true. So, I find it more convenient just to call you a Calvinist in this regard, rather than saying, "Mr. Bey believes that election is based on the sovereign good pleasure of God." But you apparently don't want to be called a Calvinist, so I won't do so.

Oh, if we must have Arminians, give us the real article! Wesley was a dyed-in-the-wool, card-carrying Arminian. He even published a periodical called The Arminian. But even with all his Arminianism, he was never guilty of tallying spiritual results on earthly tablets. He was never guilty of gimmickry. He was never guilty of seeking a mere outward response to Christ's invitation. He was never guilty of playing the Holy Spirit. Throughout his journal you will find statements like this: "Preached at such and such a place. Many seemed to be deeply affected, but God alone knows how deeply." [footnote: cited by Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn, in Preaching and Preachers, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971, p. 276.]

What we have now-a-days is worse than Arminianism. It is a pseudo-Arminianism a theological hybrid. Whether he consciously does it or not it doesn't matter , he straddles the fence by concocting a soteriological soup consisting of four points of Arminianism, and one point of what he regards as Calvinism (you guessed it, "eternal security"). By doing this he is being inconsistent.[footnote: A classic example of this would be John R. Rice, with his Sword of the Lord run-ins with Jimmy Swaggart. Imagine! Here was Rice by all indications a 4-point Arminian trying to persuade Swaggart (a 5-point Arminian) of the truth of eternal security (what Swaggart would call "Calvinism"). I would side with Swaggart. He is more consistent.] He insists on a third category, neither Calvinist nor Arminian and condemns such sectarian "name-clinging" as unbiblical. Of course, as a Calvinist I believe that this third category has been created because of a failure to accept certain Biblical truths regarding God's sovereignty.

And what do many of these hybrids call themselves? Not Arminian. Not Calvinist. No, they are aloof from all this name-clinging. They call themselves "biblicists."

What it boils down to is that taking theological positions is inescapable. I can pretend there is no controversy. I can live in a dreamland of non-partisan Christianity. But I am not in the fight unless I take sides. I can create a third side. I can refuse to pretend a neutrality. I can contend for the faith. But I’ll soon discover I must come out for a specific theological position. Which will it be? A God-honoring truth-seeker (what I call "Calvinist"), or a nebulous, amphibious theological hybrid (today's pseudo-Arminian).

"The 'Crime' of Giving an Invitation"

What I am against is the modern travesty which passes for such an invitation. Having been a victim of this device, it is hard for me to resist exposing its evil. You obviously have been fortunate in not having been victimized in the same way. Therefore you probably do not see the danger of nor share my repugnance to the "invitation system."

Danger? Repugnance? Victimized? What do I mean with regard to "giving an invitation" to come forward? Let me begin by stating that, compared to today's "evangelists," Moody smells like a rose! He never as far as I can tell reported numbers of "conversions" and "rededications" like some of today’s evangelists. He knew enough to leave that with God. He used no gimmicks to draw crowds, just strong, plain preaching, and Sankey's singing, and that's hardly a gimmick. I ve seen evangelists (so-called) use all sorts of tricks not only to draw crowds, but also to get the crowd to "come forward." Some that come immediately to mind are the "Flaming Evangelist" (who really didn't need to set himself on fire because he could preach, too), karate experts, etc. You are undoubtedly aware of these and others.

Moody, however, was not like many modern methodologists who somehow think they haven't preached the gospel unless they’ve given their hearers an "opportunity[footnote: Opportunity? Man doesn’t need an opportunity. He has all the opportunity in the world. What he needs is the grace and mercy of God!] to receive Christ" by inviting them to walk an aisle. He didn't usually tack on an "invitation" in his big meetings. He saw somewhat of a danger in that.

"It might be loosely argued that several key sermons delivered in the book of Acts constitute public invitations in the sense that the speakers certainly trusted God for a response." Yes, and I wish certain evangelists these days would "trust God for a response," too, instead of taking the "bull by the horns" and wrenching responses out of people.

Did you ever stop to think what would have happened had not Peter's audience taken the initiative to exclaim, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Would Peter have resorted to some modern tricks (counselors shills[footnote: shill = the confederate of a gambler, pitchman, auctioneer, etc., who pretends to buy, bet or bid so as to lure onlookers into participating (Webster's New World Dictionary, 2nd College Edition.)] really coming forward to create the impression of a band-wagon, upbeat music to get those feet moving, soft music accompanying tear-jerking stories to whip up emotional frenzy, Hyles sudden-sermon-end to spring the altar call on them before they can "dig in")? OF COURSE NOT! He had preached just what they needed to hear, and God used it to smite them in the heart. And even after the question, "What shall we do?", Peter didn't have to direct them to a counselor; he said, "Repent."

REPENT! Do you realize that repentance is very often a missing element in today's altar-call? I have a life story by a leading evangelist who had been evangelizing for years before he even knew what repentance was![footnote: Moore, Barry, In Spite of Myself. Wheaton, IL:
Tyndale House, 1982. p. 101.]

Peter didn't stop with "REPENT"; he added "AND BE BAPTIZED." Correspondence with a Baptist(!) pastor several years ago elicited this statement in defence of the altar call:

Realizing that baptism in the New Testament was a symbol and a sign to those who were around them of their separation, we here in America do not have a separation except when a person must make a public stand in the decision that they have made.

"If Scripture does not necessitate such an invitation, where does it forbid it?" God forbids deceitfulness in His work in Jeremiah 48:10: "Cursed be he that doeth the work of the Lord deceitfully." To declare implicitly or explicitly that God's door of grace opens on the 1st verse and slams shut after the 15th verse of "Just As I Am" is deceitful. To pat a "penitent" on the back and say "You are now saved," simply because he/she walked an aisle and said a prayer, is deceitful. To stir up so-called godly sorrow with tear-jerkingly sad stories and then "strike while the iron is hot" by inviting your listeners forward to "make the big decision" is deceitful. To incorporate shills to gain the semblance of an overwhelming response to one's invitation to "come forward" is deceitful. To insinuate that a mere raising of the hand to the question "Who in this audience is saved and knows it?" guarantees a ticket past the pearly gates, and conversely to the non-hand-raisers, a ticket to hell, is deceitful. And Jeremiah 48:10 declares: "CURSED BE HE THAT DOETH THE WORK OF THE LORD DECEITFULLY."

While you will find nowhere in scripture a verse saying, "Thou shalt not give an altar call," there are many scriptures that have bearing on this prohibition. The entire thrust of the book of Hebrews is that the altar of sacrifice has been done away in Christ, and there remains no more sacrifice for sins. Any notion of an altar call which says otherwise is heresy as well as "Judaizing." The parable mentioned in this issue's editorial (Matthew 21:28-31) also flies in the face of the profession-seeking mentality. Jesus knew the human heart much better than modern-day evangelists when he proclaimed that the son that did His father's will was the son that initially said, "No," and then went ahead and worked anyway. The other son is a type of the hypocritical volunteer who "hits the trail for God" at the invitation, but peeters out a few days or even hours later. Would I be cynical in saying that today's invitation system encourages, yea, perpetuates, such hypocrisy?

But I could go on and on about the "crime" of the invitation, when much has already been put in print. I suggest you read the following materials. You may borrow them from me if you like.

"Portraying Moody as an Egomaniac"

"Entombing Moody with the Arminians"

In 1973 I visited Moody's grave. He and his wife are buried at the top of a hill in Northfield, Massachusetts. There is not another grave around for miles, let alone an Arminian one.
Seriously, in the Calvinist-Arminian controversy, I would group him with the Arminians. Outside of that controversy I would classify him as one great man, one for whom we are unworthy to tie the shoes.

To end this reply on a positive note, let us conclude with a tribute to Moody from the book by Henry Drummond, Dwight L. Moody.[footnote: New York: McClure, Phillips & Co., 1900, pp. 123-125.] Quoting an unidentified American source:

1. "No other living man has done so much directly in the way of uniting man to God, and in restoring men to their true center.
2. "No other living man has done so much to unite man with man, to break down personal grudges and ecclesiastical barriers, bringing into united worship and harmonious cooperation men of diverse views and dispositions.
3. "No other living man has set so many other people to work, and developed, by awakening the sense of responsibility, latent talents and powers which would otherwise have lain dormant.
4. "No other living man, by precept and example, has so vindicated the rights, privileges and duties of laymen.
5. "No other living man has raised more money for other people's enterprises.
6. "No other evangelist has kept himself so aloof from fads, religious or otherwise; from isms [! ed.], from special reforms, from running specific doctrines, or attacking specific sins; has so concentrated his life upon the one supreme endeavor."
[To which Drummond adds:]
If one-fourth of this be true, it is a unique and noble record; if all be true, which of us is worthy even to characterize it?

Click here for other writings.