What's Up with the Invitation System? Part 2

Yesterday, I began a short series on the invitation system, using D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones' chapter, "Calling for Decisions," in his book Preaching and Preachers. I want to continue from yesterday by including under Lloyd-Jones' sixth point another illustration in his life. I do this because I think, as will become evident, the objection the man raises in this situation is so common to today's thinking, that it has been the cause of many an evangelical sell-out. He writes: 

In the church where I ministered in South Wales I used to stand at the main door of the church at the close of the service on Sunday night, and shake hands with people as they went out. . . . [There was] a man who used to come to our service every Sunday night. He was a tradesman but also a heavy drinker. He got drunk every Saturday night, but he was also regularly seated in the gallery of our church every Sunday night. On [this] particular night . . . I happened to notice while preaching that this man was obviously being affected. I could see that he was weeping copiously, and I was anxious to know what was happening to him. At the end of the service I went and stood at the door. After a while I saw this man coming, and immediately I was in a real mental conflict. Should I, in view of what I had seen, say a word to him and ask him to make his decision that night, or should I not? Would I be interfering with the work of the Spirit if I did so? Hurriedly I decided that I would not ask him to stay behind, so I just greeted him as usual and he went out. His face revealed that he had been crying copiously, and he could scarcely look at me. 

The following evening I was walking to the prayer meeting in the church, and, going over a railway bridge, I saw this man coming to meet me. He came across the road to me and said, 

"You know, doctor, if you had asked me to stay behind last night I would have done so." 

"Well," I said, "I am asking you now, come with me now." 

"Oh no," he replied, "but if you had asked me last night I would have done so." 

"My dear friend," I said, "if what happened to you last night does not last for twenty-four hours I am not interested in it. If you are not as ready to come with me now as you were last night you have not got the right, the true thing. Whatever affected you last night was only temporary and passing, you still do not see your real need of Christ."

Here, then, Lloyd-Jones makes his point. 

[This kind of thing] "may happen even when an appeal is not made. But when an appeal is made it is greatly exaggerated and so you get spurious conversions. As I reminded you even John Wesley, the great Arminian, did not make appeals to people to "come forward." What you find so often in his Journals is something like this: "Preached at such and such a place. many seemed to be deeply affected, but God alone knows how deeply." Surely that is very significant and important. He had spiritual understanding and knew that many factors can affect us. What he was concerned about was not immediate visible results but the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. A knowledge of the human heart, of psychology, should teach us to avoid anything that increases the possibility of spurious results."

I've quoted Lloyd-Jones at length because the whole story brings out a vital truth, viz., that we must trust the inner working of the Holy Spirit to bring to fruition the work which He must surely begin. One might argue, "Well, surely you should strike while the iron is hot! Act while the Spirit is moving." But this is not necessarily the case. Numerous would-be disciples walked away from Christ when they later understood his stringent demands. The tendency to deception is pervasive, so care should be taken. We must with Paul seek the kind of conversions that rest, not in the wisdom of men but in the power of God (1 Cor. 2:5).

More tomorrow . . .