Telling the Truth About Charles Finney

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.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">

"It may be that in the sight of heaven your more worthless and less fit to live than millions"

Word games.

You mean to tell me that "secure" does not mean the same thing today as it did in 1851 when Finney wrote his Systematic Theology?

As for the denoted or connoted meaning, I don't know, would need to check. As for what the writer intended, I would need to read the entire treatise. Accuracy is the issue here.

It is not founded in Christ's literally suffering the exact penalty of the law for them, and in this sense literally purchasing their justification and eternal salvation.

Perseverance in faith and obedience, or in consecration to God, is also an unalterable condition of justification, or of pardon and acceptance with God. By this language in this connexion, you will of course understand me to mean, that perseverance in faith and obedience is a condition, not of present, but of final or ultimate acceptance and salvation

Some have regarded the atonement simply in the light of the payment of a debt; and have represented Christ as purchasing the elect of the Father,

It is naturally impossible,

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">

"It may be that in the sight of heaven your more worthless and less fit to live than millions"

all I can say is that if Billy Graham spoke favorably about him, then that says a lot.

It is accepted that Catholic priests, notably Hudal and Draganović, were actively involved in smuggling wanted war criminals. What is disputed is the extent to which their actions were sanctioned by higher authorities within the Church. Aarons and Loftus conclude: "the evidence confirms that a small cabal of Vatican officials coordinated the mass evacuation of Fascist fugitives to Argentina, Australia, Canada, and of course, the United States. Under the direction of Pope Pius XII, Vatican officials such as Monsignor Giovanni Montini (later Pope Pius VI) supervised one of the greatest obstructions of justice in modern history"

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">

"It may be that in the sight of heaven your more worthless and less fit to live than millions"

So also sinners may see, that they are not to wait for a physical regeneration or influence, but must submit to, and embrace, the truth, if they ever expect to be saved...sinners are most likely to be regenerated while sitting under the sound of the gospel, while listening to the clear exhibition of truth...Sinners must not wait for and expect physical omnipotence to regenerate them...This view of regeneration shows that the sinner's dependence upon the Holy Spirit arises entirely out of his own voluntary stubbornness, and that his guilt is all the greater, by how much the more perfect this kind of dependence is.

physical regeneration, and all their kindred and resulting dogmas, are alike subversive of the gospel, and repulsive to human intelligence; and should be laid aside

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">

"It may be that in the sight of heaven your more worthless and less fit to live than millions"

It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one;

"egguoV" Formed from "en" and an unattested subst. "guh" or "guV" (--> hollow hand). This gives us "egguaw", "to pleage", "to engage"; then "egguoV", agj. "offering security," subst. "o egguoV" "guarantor", i.e., the one who accepts legal obligation (for payment etc) in a bond. Xenoph. Vect. 4,20; Aristot. Oec., II, p. 1350a, 19 ("kaqistanai touV egguoV twn eikosi talantwn"); Aeschin. Ep., 11, 12; Plut. De Elephant., 8, 19; P.Hamb., 24, 17. "egguoV" is also found in the LXX as in 2 Macc. 10:28, In Sir. 29:15 we see how far the pledge may go: "caritaV egguou uh epilaqh, edwken gar thn yuchn autou uper sou:" the "egguoV" may have to guarantee the other with his life.(1)

This links up with the only NT passage in which the meatphor is used, namely Heb. 7:22. Like the rest of the NT, Hebrews speaks of the present possession [emphasis here mine] of the gifts and powers of the kingdom of God (12:12 ff.). Yet salvation finds fulfillment or completion only in the future (4:1; 6:11; 9:15; 10:36). Hebrews emphasises particularly this element of hope in salvation, and thus gives prominence to the promises of God. Promises, however, demand assurances or guarantees. In distinction from the OT, Hebrews does not find these in the words or oaths of God (6:17 f.). As in early Christianity generally, present and future are linked to the divine action in Jesus. Thinking in terms of the promises of God, Hebrews finds in Jesus the Guarantor. With His life, death, and ascention Jesus has given us the assurance (cf. Sir. 29:15 f.) that the beginning of the saving work of God will necessarily be followed by its completion.

(1) "egguoV" A. Wslde-J. Pokorny, Vergleichendes Worterbuch d. indog. Sprachen, I, (1927), 636 f.; F. Partsch., Griech. Burgschaftsrecht, I, (1909), 113 ff., 228 ff., 281 ff; W. Prellwitz, Homeric "amfiguheiV", Der Kunstler, Zeitschr. f. vergl. Sprachforschung, 46 (1914), 169 ff., J. Behm, Der Begriff diaqhkh im NT, (1912) 77; E. Lohmeyer, Diatheke (1913), 145; Mitteis-Wilcken, II, 1, 264 ff.; C. Schwegler, De Aeschinis quae feruntur epistulis (1913), 29ff. Cf. Preisigke Wrot., I, 410; Schwegler, op. cit.

the extent of its administration is larger, reaching to Gentiles as well as Jews; and besides, it is now actually ratified and confirmed by the blood of Christ, which is therefore called the blood of the everlasting covenant: and of this testament or covenant Christ is the “surety”; the word signifies one that draws nigh: Christ drew nigh to his Father in the council of peace, and undertook to be the Saviour and Redeemer of his people he substituted himself in their place and stead; he interposed between the creditor and the debtor, and became surety for the payment of the debts of the latter, and so stood engaged for them, and in their room: Christ is not the surety for the Father to his people, but for them to the Father; as to satisfy for their sins, to work out a righteousness for them, to preserve and keep them, and make them happy; which is an instance of matchless love.

Was Jesus made a surety.
The word surety egguov— occurs nowhere else in the New Testament...It properly means, a bondsman; one who pledges his name, property, or influence, that a certain thing shall be done. When a contract is made, a debt contracted, or a note given, a friend often becomes the security in the case, and is himself responsible if the terms of the contract are not complied with. In the case of the new covenant between God and man, Jesus is the "security," or the bondsman. But of what, and to whom, is he the surety? It cannot be that he is a bondsman for God that he will maintain the covenant, and be true to the promise which he makes, as Crellius supposes, for we need no suck "security" of the Divine faithfulness and veracity.

It cannot be that he becomes responsible for the Divine conduct in any way—- for no such responsibility is needed or possible. But it must mean, that he is the security or bondsman on the part of man; He is the pledge that we shall be saved. He becomes responsible, so to speak, to law and justice, that no injury shall be done by our salvation, though we are sinners. He is not a security that we shall be saved, at any rate, without holiness, repentance, faith, or true religions for he never could enter into a suretyship of that kind; but his suretyship extends to this point, that the law shall be honoured; that all its demands shall be met; that we may be saved though we have violated it, and that its terrific penalty shall not fall upon us. The case is this:— A sinner becomes a true penitent, and enters heaven. It might be said that he does this over a broken law; that God treats the good and bad alike, and that no respect has been paid to the law or the penalty in his salvation.

Here the great Surety comes in, and says that it is not so. He has become responsible for this; he the surety, the pledge, that all proper honour shall be paid to justice, and that the same good effects shall ensue as if the penalty of the law had been fully borne. He himself has died to honour the law, and to open a way by which its penalty may be fully remitted consistently with justice, and he becomes the everlasting pledge or security to law, to justice, to the universe, that no injury shall result from the pardon and salvation of the sinner. According to this view, no man can rely on the suretyship of Jesus but he who expects salvation on the terms of the gospel. The suretyship is not at all that he shall be saved in his sins, or that he shall enter heaven no matter what life he leads; it is only that if he believes, repents, and is saved, no injury shall be clone to the universe, no dishonour to the law. For this the Lord Jesus is responsible.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">

"It may be that in the sight of heaven your more worthless and less fit to live than millions"

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dir="ltr">

"It may be that in the sight of heaven your more worthless and less fit to live than millions"