Finney's Systematic Theology

TSIBHOD said:

Hi there. I do not know just how close to Calvinism my beliefs would be considered. I really do not care whether my beliefs line up with Calvinism or Arminianism, or the Catholic belief about predestination, or something else. I just look at the scriptures, study, and pray.

I find, also, that it can sometimes be hard to define just what a "Calvinist" or an "Arminian" is, since there seem to be small variances of doctrine within each camp. So I would like to know if some strong believers in Calvinism would consider Finney's Systematic Theology to be Calvinist. You can find it on the Internet. Some particularly applicable chapters in it are:

EXTENT OF ATONEMENT
ELECTION
REPROBATION
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

Where do Finney's beliefs stand on the Calvinist-Arminian scale?

Click to expand...

TSIBHOD said:

Hi there. I do not know just how close to Calvinism my beliefs would be considered. I really do not care whether my beliefs line up with Calvinism or Arminianism, or the Catholic belief about predestination, or something else. I just look at the scriptures, study, and pray.

I find, also, that it can sometimes be hard to define just what a "Calvinist" or an "Arminian" is, since there seem to be small variances of doctrine within each camp. So I would like to know if some strong believers in Calvinism would consider Finney's Systematic Theology to be Calvinist. You can find it on the Internet. Some particularly applicable chapters in it are:

EXTENT OF ATONEMENT
ELECTION
REPROBATION
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

Where do Finney's beliefs stand on the Calvinist-Arminian scale?

Click to expand...

What the Bible doctrine of election is not.

1. The Bible doctrine of election is not that any are chosen to salvation, in such a sense, that they will or can be saved without repentance, faith, and sanctification.

2. Nor is it that some are chosen to salvation, in such a sense, that they will be saved irrespective of their being regenerated, and persevering in holiness to the end of life. The Bible most plainly teaches, that these are naturally indispensable conditions of salvation, and of course election cannot dispense with them.

3. Nor is it that any are chosen to salvation for, or on account of their own foreseen merits, or good works. "Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Tim. 1:9). The foreseen fact, that by the wisest governmental arrangement God could convert and sanctify and fit them for heaven, must have been a condition in the sense of a sine qua non, of their election to salvation, but could not have been the fundamental reason for it, as we shall see. God did not elect them to salvation, for or on account of their foreseen good works, but upon condition of their foreseen repentance, faith and perseverance.

4. The Bible doctrine of election is not that God elected some to salvation, upon such conditions that it is really uncertain whether they will comply with those conditions, and be finally saved. The Bible does not leave the question of the final salvation of the elect as a matter of real uncertainty. This we shall see in its place. The elect were chosen to salvation, upon condition that God foresaw that He could secure their repentance, faith, and final perseverance.

What the Bible doctrine of election is.

It is, that all of Adam's race, who are or ever will be saved, were from eternity chosen by God to eternal salvation, through the sanctification of their hearts by faith in Christ. In other words, they are chosen to salvation by means of sanctification. Their salvation is the end their sanctification is a means. Both the end and the means are elected, appointed, chosen; the means as really as the end, and for the sake of the end. The election of some individuals and nations to certain privileges, and to do certain things, is not the kind of election of which I treat at this time; but I am to consider the doctrine of election as it respects election unto salvation, as just explained.

Click to expand...

That moral depravity consists in selfishness, or in the choice of self-interest, self-gratification, or self-indulgence, as an end.

Consequently it cannot consist,

(1.) In a sinful constitution, or in a constitutional appetency or craving for sin. This has been shown in a former lecture, on what is not implied in disobedience to the moral law.

(2.) Moral depravity is sin itself and not the cause of sin. It is not something prior to sin, that sustains to it the relation of a cause, but it is the essence and the whole of sin.

(3.) It cannot be an attribute of human nature, considered simply as such, for this would be physical, and not moral depravity.

(4.) Moral depravity is not then to be accounted for by ascribing it to a nature or constitution sinful in itself. To talk of a sinful nature, or sinful constitution, in the sense of physical sinfulness, is to ascribe sinfulness to the Creator, who is the author of nature. It is to overlook the essential nature of sin, and to make sin a physical virus, instead of a voluntary and responsible choice. Both sound philosophy and the Bible, make sin to consist in obeying the flesh, or in the spirit of self-pleasing, or self-indulgence, or, which is the same thing, in selfishness in a carnal mind, or in minding the flesh. But writers on moral depravity have assumed, that moral depravity was distinct from, and the cause of sin, that is, of actual transgression. They call it original sin, indwelling sin, a sinful nature, an appetite for sin, an attribute of human nature, and the like. We shall presently see what has led to this view of the subject.

Click to expand...

Charles Finney's "New Measures"

Following on the heels of the eighteenth century revival led by the Gospel-preaching of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, the so-called "Second Great Awakening" introduced the "new measures" and heresies of Presbyterian evangelist Charles Grandison Finney. Under his influence, the theological emphasis within Evangelicalism shifted from justification, or being right with God by faith in Jesus Christ (the essence of the preaching of Edwards and Whitefield), to regeneration. or being "born-again" for the purpose of moral refinement, Man's part in this new-birth or conversion, rather than God's grace in justification, took center stage. Michael Horton writes,

In the Second Awakening, however, the message shifts from God to man. In the first Awakening, the emphasis is on what God has done: in the Second, on what man can and must do. Thus, a whole system of techniques and methods emerges in order to assist (some said manipulate) audiences into doing what they must do in order to achieve salvation. (5)

Finney taught that conversion was not a miracle of the Holy Spirit, but an act of the human will influenced by methods of persuasion. As he put it, conversion was the "simple volition of the sinners mind through the influence of motives." According to Finney, we are neither dead in our trespasses and sin, nor wounded. He diagnosed the human condition as merely uninformed. His remedy: Persuasive techniques and methods. In order to teach this heresy, it was necessary for Finney to jettison the truth of original sin or total depravity. Iain Murray writes:

Finney knew that for most of his hearers a major obstacle to accepting this simple account of conversion was what they had been taught about the character of man's fallen nature. If men needed only the inducement of motives in order to effect a change of nature, how was the doctrine of human depravity to be understood? Did the Holy Spirit do no more than persuade men by means of motives to obey the gospel? That was what Finney believed..... a decision of the will, not a change of nature, was all that was needed for anyone to be converted. (6)

In order to persuade people to become Christians and to obey God, Finney emphasized emotion and excitement. His methods and style were directly related to his heretical theology. In his lectures, Finney defined a revival as being the product of "nothing more than the right use of means." Man was not spiritually dead but had merely made the wrong choices. "The sinner," Finney taught, "has all the faculties and natural abilities requisite to render perfect obedience to God. (7)

Click to expand...

TSIBHOD said:

If either of you two who have replied so far have any examples from that Systematic Theology that you believe are wrong, I would be interested in hearing them. I know that you do not disagree with every single thing that Finney said, so if you could tell me some of the things that you do disagree with, that might be helpful. Also, please just tell me things that you disagree with because of your belief in Calvinism, so that I will know that those things definitely do not match up with Calvinism.

Click to expand...

calgal said:

Despite the terribly UNFORTUNATE actions of the Rochester Presbytery in calling this NON CALVINIST to the office of evangelist, Finney is about as Calvinist as Arminius or Servetus. His systematic theology has been described as horrid (that is the kindest description really). Personally, it falls below the JW NWT or the Book of mormon in terms of its veracity and applicability. YMMV of course.

Click to expand...

Bradford said:

Calgal- do you ever pull your punches?

You're right of course- this is by-and-large heresy.

Click to expand...