Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 6
The transcript contrasts modern altar calls (a recent innovation) with Acts, where public confession occurred at baptism; what would need to change in church life if we treated baptism—not the altar call—as the normal moment of public confession, and what resistance would we expect (practically and theologically)?
Another way to ask: If baptism, not an altar call, was the normal public confession, what would have to change in how churches operate? What pushback would you expect, both practical and theological?

Direct Answer Based on the transcript, churches would need to relocate the normal public confession of Jesus’ lordship to the baptismal event, as in Acts, and expect resistance because many Christians are used to altar calls as the standard “public decision” moment.

Support from Transcript:

  • “Today this public confession is typically made at altar calls.”
  • But “altar calls… [are] a recent innovation… no further than the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.”
  • “We read of no such practice in the Book of Acts.”
  • “Instead, in Acts, people made their public confession at the time of their baptisms,” followed by a long list of Acts examples (Acts 2, 8, 10, 16, 18, 22).
  • The transcript frames confession as part of the “initial stage of salvation,” which would naturally connect with baptism as an initiation moment.
Discussion Follow-ups What pastoral changes would be needed to prepare people for baptism as public confession? How might fears about “works” or sacramentalism show up as theological resistance, even if the transcript doesn’t detail those objections?

Jumpstarter 6 of 10
Back Questions Next