Telling the Truth About Charles Finney

DeaconDean · #31 16th September 2009, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Benefactor

Benefactor

Finney a man with a passion to see mankind saved.

The call to salvation is an appeal and Finney was among the great soul winners of his day, with a heart and passion kin to that of Paul the apostle. These three Utube videos are in defense of Finney against sloppy so called scholarship, miss quotes and miss representation of this Godly man.

Finney Part 1:

YouTube - Charles Finney and Decisional Regeneration part 1

Finney Part 2:

YouTube - Charles Finney and Decisional Regeneration part 2

Finney Part 3:

YouTube - Charles Finney and Decisional Regeneration part 3

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let’s get this thread back on track dealing with the content of the three part U-tubes. Here, too, more concerning Finney that will help in understanding this Godly Champion for Christ. This godly man had a deep abiding compassion to bring sinners to Christ, and to God’s glory. Let us join with the eternal host is giving God glory for his marvelous ways. He takes mere men and brings salvation to others. Finney pointed men and women and boys and girls to Christ out of his deep love for our Lord.

Glossary Of Terms

A Jazz twist to a great hymn enjoy
http://rosemck1.tripod.com/just-a-closer-walk-jazzy.mid

So, who is telling the truth about Charles Finney?

This person, or his own Systematic Theology?

"For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." -Mt. 12:37 (KJV)

So once again, I ask, prove that Charles Grandison Finney did not deny that Christ's atonement did not provide salvation for anyone.

And we are to believe that Finney was:

...a heart and passion kin to that of Paul the apostle...godly man had a deep abiding compassion to bring sinners to Christ, and to God’s glory.

Strange that a person could deny that Christ could atone for mans sins and still be upheld as what is quoted above.

God Bless

Till all are one.

nobdysfool · #32 16th September 2009, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by Benefactor

Originally Posted by Benefactor

Finney a man with a passion to see mankind saved.

The call to salvation is an appeal and Finney was among the great soul winners of his day, with a heart and passion kin to that of Paul the apostle. These three Utube videos are in defense of Finney against sloppy so called scholarship, miss quotes and miss representation of this Godly man.

Sorry, the information DeaconDean posted was thorough, comprehensive, and accurate. Defending Finney is equivalent to adopting the failed and flawed human philosophy of " The end justifies the means". Looking to supposed "results" as a proof of someone's godliness is backwards. It's putting the cart before the horse.

Even if many were saved as a result of his work, they were saved in spite of his teaching, not because of it. His theology was deficient in certain key areas, as DD showed. It is no light thing to deny Substitutionary Atonement.

Originally Posted by Benefactor

Let’s get this thread back on track dealing with the content of the three part U-tubes. Here, too, more concerning Finney that will help in understanding this Godly Champion for Christ. This godly man had a deep abiding compassion to bring sinners to Christ, and to God’s glory. Let us join with the eternal host is giving God glory for his marvelous ways. He takes mere men and brings salvation to others. Finney pointed men and women and boys and girls to Christ out of his deep love for our Lord.

Let's see some actual comments about his theology, rather than this emotional hero-worship. Deal with what DeaconDean posted, quotes from Finney himself where he denies the teachings of scripture.

DeaconDean · #33 16th September 2009, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by nobdysfool

Sorry, the information DeaconDean posted was thorough, comprehensive, and accurate. Defending Finney is equivalent to adopting the failed and flawed human philosophy of " The end justifies the means". Looking to supposed "results" as a proof of someone's godliness is backwards. It's putting the cart before the horse.

Even if many were saved as a result of his work, they were saved in spite of his teaching, not because of it. His theology was deficient in certain key areas, as DD showed. It is no light thing to deny Substitutionary Atonement.

Let's see some actual comments about his theology, rather than this emotional hero-worship. Deal with what DeaconDean posted, quotes from Finney himself where he denies the teachings of scripture.

Thank you for the kind words brother.

I deal in facts as shown above.

Charles G. Finney taugth a form of Pelagianism.

And to back that up,

Pelagius (ca. AD 354 – ca. AD 420/440) was an ascetic who denied the doctrine of original sin, later developed by Augustine of Hippo, and was declared a heretic by the Council of Carthage. His interpretation of a doctrine of free will became known as Pelagianism.

Source

Charles Finney devotes four chapters to "Moral Depravity" speaking and teaching against "Original Sin". He devotes five chapters speaking and teaching his doctrine on "Free Will".

To be quite specific, Charles G. Finney said, and I quote:

10. The atonement would present to creatures the highest possible motives to virtue.

11. It would produce among creatures the highest kind and degree of happiness, by leading them to contemplate and imitate his love.

A desire to sustain his own reputation, as the only moral power that could support his own moral government, must have been a leading reason for the atonement.

17. Another reason for the atonement was, to counteract the influence of the devil, which was so extensively and powerfully exerted in this world for the promotion of selfishness.

19. The atonement is the highest testimony that God can bear against selfishness. It is the testimony of his own example.

20. The atonement is a higher expression of his regard for the public interest than the execution of law. It is, therefore, a fuller satisfaction to public justice.

Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology, Lecture 34, Atonement

Source

In other words, Christ's life and death on the cross, could not atone for one sin, but it did fulfill the needs of the "public justice", and by living and dying in such a manner, Christ provided the highest possible example and motivation for us to follow.

And this is a theologian you hold up in high esteem? This is a godly man who had a passion to see mankind saved?

Yea...right.

And, if you will notice, I only used one (1) outside reference and that was the actual words used by the author himself who reviewed and condemned Finney's "On Revivals of Religion: Review of Charles G. Finney - Part II by Albert Dod".

The rest, came from Finney himself.

All of what I posted are facts, and they are varifiable, and they are straight from the horses mouth.

All I ask is that you prove them wrong.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Myxlplyx · #34 17th September 2009, 01:17 AM

"the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one"

Umm, pardon me, but does God not reckon righteousness to those who have believed on the Name of the only begotten of the Father?

Would that not make the above statement true?

"the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one"

Jesus died for all men, but all men do not believe..

DeaconDean · #35 17th September 2009, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by Myxlplyx

"the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one"

Umm, pardon me, but does God not reckon righteousness to those who have believed on the Name of the only begotten of the Father?

Would that not make the above statement true?

Let me answer the last question first. No.

And in answering the last question first, it lays the ground for the first question.

Righteousness is reckoned to the believer by God the Father by what standard?

Faith.

As I stated in another thread:

Perhaps one of the best statements on faith and justification is found in the Westminster Larger Catechism:

“Question 73: How does faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?
Answer: Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receives and applies Christ and his righteousness.”

Even though this was written over 360 years ago, it is still just as correct as it was the day it was originally penned. There is a key word in this statement which we wish to place emphasis upon. It is the word “instrument.” Arthur W. Pink says:
“It is more accurate to speak of faith as the "instrument" rather than as the condition, for a "condition" is generally used to signify that for the sake whereof a benefit is conferred. Faith is neither the ground nor the substance of our justification, but simply the hand which receives the divine gift proffered to us in the Gospel.”[1]

Arthur W. Pink, The Doctrine of Justification, Chapter 8, Its Instrument, book on-line, accessed 5/28/09, found on the World Wide Web at: 8. Its Instruments

Faith justifies only as an instrument which God has appointed to the apprehension and application of Christ’s righteousness. When we say faith is the instrument of our justification, understand that it is not meant that faith is the instrument whereby God justifies us, by no means, rather, we mean that faith is the instrument whereby we receive Jesus Christ. Christ has merited righteousness for us, and faith in Christ is what renders it right in God’s sight that the purchased blessing is assigned. Faith unites us to Christ. Having been made one with Christ in spirit, God now considers us as one with Him in the Law.

We are justified by faith, not for faith, not for what faith is, rather, because of what faith receives.

Now I'll readily admit that this paper I wrote addresses "justification", but by the same token, the same Greek word for "justify" can also be interperted as "righteous".

I also pointed out:

dikaiow in the N.T.

The concept of vindication/justification is found twice. Once it is used in the sense of “to justify God”. A similar usage is to be found in the “edikaiwqh en pneumati” of the hymn to Christ in 1 Tim. 3:16, for which “redeemed” is hardly adequate. The idea that Christ was justified in the sphere of the spirit, i.e.: that his claim to be Christ was demonstrated and validated by the resurrection (in contrast to the “edikaiwqn en sarki”).[2]

Then we have the concept of “to justify oneself,” “to represent oneself as righteous.” A weaker sense, which yet still betrays its legal origin, the lawyer (nomikoV) in Lk. 10:29: “dikaiwsai eautou” seeks to vindicate himself in the debate. The character of the Pharisees is testified to in this manner: “ymeis este oi dikaiounteV eautouV twn anqrwpwn” (you are those justifying yourselves before men) “to declare or to represent oneself as righteous” is much closer to the main N.T. usage. The attribute of the “dikaioV” anticipates what God alone can establish by His pronouncement.

We also have “dikaiwqhnai” in the sense of saving righteousness in the Synopitists. Paul is not only one to use the term in strict legal sense. Luke’s statement concerning the publican in 18:14: “katebh outoV dedikaiwmenoV eis ton oikon autou h ekeinon” can only mean “acquitted” “declared righteous.” The saying assumes a present righteousness, [3] though in distinction from Paul, there is no reference to the saving act of the cross.[4] The reference in Mt. 12:37: “ek gar twn logwn sou dikaiwqhsh” (for the words of you, you will be justified)[5] is exclusively to the last judgment.

[2] They knew morally as opposed to spiritually.

[3] Str.-B. II, 247 f.

[4] The "par ekeinon" B L Or, better than "mulla par" D and h gar ekeinoV. is to be taken in an absolutelt exclusively sense, cf. 4 Esr. 12:6: prae multis (p. 213). Hence it has nothing whatever to do with the comp. or superl. use of "dikaioV", nor with an expression like 1 Bas. 24:18: "dikaioV su uper eme" "thou art more righteous than I"

[5] Rabb. par. in Schl. Mt., 412

The Meaning of “dikiaow”

Our Greek word has its root in the Greek word “dikh”. This word means “right”, “justice”; in the NT, judicial punishment, vengeance; 2 Thes. 1:9; Jude 7; sentence of punishment, judgment, Acts 25:15; personified, the goddess of justice or vengeance, Nemesis, Paena, Acts 28:4.

This word draws directly from the Hebrew word “tsadag” (tsaw-dak). Which is rendered in the OT as “justify”, “righteous”, “just”, “justice”, “cleansed”, “cleanse ourselves”, “righteousness”.

"the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one"

Jesus died for all men, but all men do not believe..

While it is true that not all men will believe, the provision for eternal life is there. It has been provided through Jesus Christ.

Lets look at the word Atone for a moment.

The Greek Lexicon list as a defintion for atone:

adjustment of a difference, reconciliation, restoration to favour
in the NT of the restoration of the favour of God to sinners that repent and put their trust in the expiatory death of Christ

Source

Paul tells us very plainly:

"And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." -Rom. 5:11 (KJV)

What Charles Finney has said in: "the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one" is that Christ's death on the cross, was not sufficent to reconcile us to God, to secure atonement and salvation.

In a way, Finney has said that everything the Writer of Hebrews said in Heb. 7:26-28; 9:18-22, 28; 10:4-14; is all a lie.

In John 1:29, John the Baptist says:

"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

In the Greek, John says as he sees Jesus: Behold the Lamb of God which is even now, bearing, taking upon Himself, carrying away, the sin of the world.

The Greek word used here: "airwn " is: "Participle Present Active Nominative Singular Masculine "

Charles Spurgeon said:

Our Lord carried the burden of our sins up to the tree, and there and then He made an end of it. He had carried that load long before, for John the Baptist said of Him, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away" (the verb is in the present tense, "which taketh away") "the sin of the world" (John 1:29). Our Lord was then bearing the sin of the world as the Lamb of God. From the day when He began His divine ministry, I might say even before that, He bore our sins. He was the Lamb "slain from the foundation of the world;" so, when He went up to Calvary, bearing His cross, He was bearing our sins up to the tree.

The Sin Bearer, C.H. Spurgeon

Christ did atone for our sins, and He did, by doing so, secure our salvation.

Here are simple Biblical facts concerning Christ's death and atonement:

1. Christ died to deliver believers from this evil age, as God had willed: Galatians 1:4
2. Christ died to redeem and purify believers: Titus 2:14.
3. Christ died to sanctify and cleanse the church: Ephesians 5:25-27.
4. Christ died to actually remove God's wrath: Romans 3:25.
5. Christ's death doesn't make it possible for us to be reconciled to God, but actually does reconcile us to God: Romans 5:10.
6. Christ actually obtained eternal redemption by His death: Hebrews 9:12.
7. Christ's death actually secured redemption: Ephesians 1:7.

God Bless

Till all are one.

archierieus · #36 17th September 2009, 03:09 AM

To my awareness, most Christians understand the Bible to teach that Christ paid the price for all the sins of the entire world, of everyone who ever lived, but the provision must be accepted by the believer in order to be effective. That is, no one is automatically saved as a result of Christ's death on the cross. His death must be applied to the individual in order for there to be an atonement, see for example Leviticus ch. 1 thru 6. In the NT, Paul speaks of being saved by God's grace, but also points out that salvation is received by the individual through the exercise of faith. IOW, once again, no one is automatically saved.

DeaconDean · #37 17th September 2009, 03:11 AM

Originally Posted by archierieus

To my awareness, most Christians understand the Bible to teach that Christ paid the price for all the sins of the entire world, of everyone who ever lived, but the provision must be accepted by the believer in order to be effective. That is, no one is automatically saved as a result of Christ's death on the cross. His death must be applied to the individual in order for there to be an atonement, see for example Leviticus ch. 1 thru 6. In the NT, Paul speaks of being saved by God's grace, but also points out that salvation is received by the individual through the exercise of faith. IOW, once again, no one is automatically saved.

Who, including me, in this thread, said they were?

God Bless

Till all are one.

archierieus · #38 17th September 2009, 03:18 AM

While I don't know scratch about Charles Finney's theology, other than snippets I have read here (I didn't look at the videos) I am simply pointing out that Christ's death on the cross does not automatically save one soul. The provision is made, but it must be accepted by faith to be applied to the individual. I do believe in forensic justification, and I also believe that there was only one Sinless being on this earth, Jesus Christ. We are saved through the imputed righteousness of Christ. Those points are clearly made in the book of Romans. I cannot believe that Finney, as an evangelis, would not agree with that, it is plainly stated in Scripture, it is so basic, there must be a misunderstanding somewhere.

DeaconDean · #39 17th September 2009, 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by archierieus

While I don't know scratch about Charles Finney's theology, other than snippets I have read here (I didn't look at the videos) I am simply pointing out that Christ's death on the cross does not automatically save one soul.

Again, please show me where I or anybody else said that people were "automatically saved".

The provision is made, but it must be accepted by faith to be applied to the individual. I do believe in forensic justification, and I also believe that there was only one Sinless being on this earth, Jesus Christ. We are saved through the imputed righteousness of Christ. Those points are clearly made in the book of Romans. I cannot believe that Finney, as an evangelis, would not agree with that, it is plainly stated in Scripture, it is so basic, there must be a misunderstanding somewhere.

Christ's death on the cross, the shedding of His precious blood, was enough to atone for ours sins, it was enough to secure redemption.

If Christ's death was not sufficent to "secure the salvation of any one", then perhaps you might be so nice as to tell me what does?

Piety?

Strict obedience to the Law?

Sacrificing?

Asceticism?

If we don't "have redemption through his blood," (cf. Eph. 1:7) then what do we have redemption through?

God Bless

Till all are one.

archierieus · #40 17th September 2009, 03:32 AM

Originally Posted by DeaconDean

[/u][/b]

If Christ's death was not sufficent to "secure the salvation of any one", then perhaps you might be so nice as to tell me what does?

Those, of course, were not my words, I assume you are quoting from Finney??? If so, then I would want to start by looking at whatever article or treatise it is quoted from. Secondly, I would want to understand what the author meant by 'secure.' It was written, apparently, in the mid 1800's, and word meanings have morphed a bit since then. Honestly, I don't feel like I have a dog in the fight, I am curious, but not willing to invest the time to research the docs. I just am interested in fairplay here.