I think I'll soon be sick

[inchristalone221]

http://www.gospeltruth.net/

OK, this website is named "gospel truth" and the front page is a big fat picture of Charles Finney.

Anyway, I thought this would be a good chance to discuss the heresies of Finney and whether or not they are still with us in modern evangelicalism.

Discuss.

 

[chrismon]

I don't know anything about Finney, but this is the quote which was on the front of that website today:

It implies that this is their only work, that the only business they have on the earth is to glorify God in the world's conversion. They are to do or say nothing, and be nothing, more or less than is conducive to this end. To this their whole being, time, influence, and possessions are to be consecrated. In that solemn parting hour, Christ doubtless meant to give them His whole mind in these few last words; Go, apply yourselves directly to the conversion of the world, and finish the great work which I have begun. I have given you the example; let your eye too be single, and your devotion unwearied and entire. -- Charles Finney

I gotta tell you, those are some wise words. Do not apply the Gospel to your life, but apply your life to the Gospel. Do no try to conform the Gospel to your purposes, but change your purpose to Gospel's. I do not know if Finney means that we should be beating people with Bibles non-stop. But the devotion inherent in his meanings is the farthest thing from heresy.

Of course, who knows? Tomorrow the quote might be something juicy

 

[cygnusx1]

http://www.gospeltruth.net/

OK, this website is named "gospel truth" and the front page is a big fat picture of Charles Finney.

Anyway, I thought this would be a good chance to discuss the heresies of Finney and whether or not they are still with us in modern evangelicalism.

Discuss.

not all Finneys sermons were bad , in fact I posted one up in my blog the other day ........... I really liked it , he hit the nail on the head,.....

http://www.christianforums.com/t2287388

 

[inchristalone221]

Finney, even in that quote, had the terrible tendency to see Christ as example only. To quote the hosts of the White Horse Inn, "If Christ is only (or even primarily) example, then we are damned." Christ as example is not Christianity. He would then become the example that damns us all, for we do not fit or even resemble His example.

 

[inchristalone221]

Oh and by the way, I do not think that everything Finney wrote was bad. That'd be just genetic fallacy. But Finney in the same breath as "gospel" just seems wrong. The gospel was the furthest thing from the man's doctrine.

 

[chrismon]

"If Christ is only (or even primarily) example, then we are damned." Christ as example is not Christianity. He would then become the example that damns us all, for we do not fit or even resemble His example.

Very true.

 

[JimfromOhio]

I actually repect Finney's teachings even though I don't agree with some of his teachings.

 

[JimfromOhio]

I actually repect Finney's teachings even though I don't agree with some of his teachings.

Oh yeah.. I say that just about any other theologians out there. The only theologians I agree with completely are from the BIBLE.

 

[inchristalone221]

With the doctrines Finney held, I find it hard to call him a Christian. He denied original sin, substitutionary atonement, the need for supernatural new birth, and a host of other doctrines essential to the Christian faith.

 

[chrismon]

With the doctrines Finney held, I find it hard to call him a Christian. He denied original sin, substitutionary atonement, the need for supernatural new birth, and a host of other doctrines essential to the Christian faith.

Its a dangerous thing for modern folks to weigh someone's faith upon their doctrine. In times where being a Christian was not at all an identity afforded to us by something other than the Church (ourselvs, our nationality, etc), doctrine is what made us separate, as with biblical Israel and its neighbors. Today this is no longer the case. What this comes down to is the substance of Christian identity. Is it still in our doctrine? Was it really ever? (Or is that just how we preceive our own history?) Or, on the other hand, has Christian identity always been founded in repentence and an understanding of our need for God and be his light to the world?

In light of that, I think of Mormons or JWs, who doctrinally are terrible convoluted, that surprise me with their faithfulness. Many are people who take the heart of the Gospel very seriously in terms of submission, generosity, devotion to the nearness of the Kingdom, and all truly out of a desire for the glory of God. I don't know what to make of this - but I do recognize that at time the faithfullness seen in my own life is not on par.

I think in the end the most poignant exampe of this confusion are the pre-Nicean Arian Christians. Had they all died before that first great Council, would they all be in Hell? Even though Athanasius appears triumphant in our hindsight, he was persecuted by the Church and the Empire, at various times, for the rest of his life for his "athanasian" beliefs. Is the entirety of those factions which held in doubt the deity of Christ all damned? Even if they had impeccable discipleship?

Tricky business.

 

[inchristalone221]

Its a dangerous thing for modern folks to weigh someone's faith upon their doctrine. In times where being a Christian was not at all an identity afforded to us by something other than the Church (ourselvs, our nationality, etc), doctrine is what made us separate, as with biblical Israel and its neighbors. Today this is no longer the case. What this comes down to is the substance of Christian identity. Is it still in our doctrine? Was it really ever? (Or is that just how we preceive our own history?) Or, on the other hand, has Christian identity always been founded in repentence and an understanding of our need for God and be his light to the world?

I agree that it is a dangerous thing to assess someone's faith on indifferent doctrines. However, these particular doctrines are Christianity. Without substitutionary atonement, there is no gospel. Without the sinful state and need for new birth, atonement is incoherent.

 

[chrismon]

I agree that it is a dangerous thing to assess someone's faith on indifferent doctrines. However, these particular doctrines are Christianity. Without substitutionary atonement, there is no gospel. Without the sinful state and need for new birth, atonement is incoherent.

I certainly would not call problematic JW or Mormon doctrines "indifferent". Some do cut at the core of the Gospel. However, this is not the issue, that is the depth or breadth of a doctrinal error.

The issue is that Christ himself explains that the fruit of discipleship, and therefore proof of discipleship, is found in a life lived out of his promises, not right doctrine. On one hand you want to fault a man for ignoring doctrine, but you, on the other hand, would discount his discipleship because of his doctrine. Are you saying one outweighs the other? Can a man be of good conscience, yet not act out of it and be saved? We simply cannot ignore the direct words of God when we evaluate anothers Christanity - no matter how uncomfrotable we are with their doctrine.

To be honest, I do not even like what I am saying here, but I simply cannot deny the truth in it and its direct Source. Our need to have right doctrine is nothing more than an attempt to control God and his people - this is the pharisaical error which Jesus constantly rails against. What does it mean to have right doctrine and fail in discipleship? What does it mean to have faulty doctrine and excell in discipleship? I wish I knew such answers. However, the older I get the more I am comfrotable with faulty doctrine and excellence in discipleship since those whome it seems God has admired are those who live like Christ and respond to the call of the Gospel as Christ did - after all we are gifted by the Spirit to be oriented towards God but never have we been promised that we will be as wise and as intelligent as God. In fact, if repentence is part of the Gospel, so is dependence - we cannot rely on God to do the good which we are called to, but we can rely on God to know what is good.

 

[inchristalone221]

The issue is that Christ himself explains that the fruit of discipleship, and therefore proof of discipleship, is found in a life lived out of his promises, not right doctrine. On one hand you want to fault a man for ignoring doctrine, but you, on the other hand, would discount his discipleship because of his doctrine. Are you saying one outweighs the other? Can a man be of good conscience, yet not act out of it and be saved? We simply cannot ignore the direct words of God when we evaluate anothers Christanity - no matter how uncomfrotable we are with their doctrine.

One can be the greatest "disciple" or moral reformer in history, but if they do not trust in Christ and Christ alone for substitutionary atonement of their sins they will go to hell anyway.

Again, if following Christ's example is the heart of being a Christian, then every one of us is still dead in sins. This is the ancient distinction of orthodoxy (right belief) and orthopraxy (right deeds). Christianity sees orthopraxy as flowing from orthodoxy. Finney saw orthodoxy as irrelevant and emphasized orthopraxy.

Our need to have right doctrine is nothing more than an attempt to control God and his people - this is the pharisaical error which Jesus constantly rails against.

The pharisaical error was just the opposite. The pharisies depended upon their actions and conformity to their extraneous laws

 

[rmwilliamsll]

and therefore proof of discipleship,

the idea "disclosure then authentication" seems to work better than proof. good works done externally make visible the invisible internal faith, first this disclose then authentication in the distinction between true and false faith, one that is legitimate and from God and the other a counterfeit, hence the word authenticate or to certify as true and from the right person.

proof has the idea of comparision to a known good example or more often justification that the route of obtaining the final outcome is rigorous. i don't see the connection between say mathematical proofs and good works. it seems too much like creating a parallel system and comparing fruit from each system.

does that make sense? awkward at best, but expresses something important.

 

[chrismon]

One can be the greatest "disciple" or moral reformer in history, but if they do not trust in Christ and Christ alone for substitutionary atonement of their sins they will go to hell anyway.

Christ as example is different than Christ as moral reformer. Finney does not abuse the mission of Christ as a case for moral reform. However, he is very clear on why we have Christ as an example: "that the only business [Christians] have on the earth is to glorify God in the world's conversion". Someone who seeks the example of Christ for the glory of God is not a "moral reformer" but a Christian.

The essence of discipleship is not verifying with right words an acknowledgement of "substitutionary atonement" but in living substitutionary atonement. Someone who gives up his whole life for the glory of God is alive with substutionary atonement. After that, really, who gives an ounce of Paul's "rubbish" if your words are not up to scratch.

Again, if following Christ's example is the heart of being a Christian, then every one of us is still dead in sins. This is the ancient distinction of orthodoxy (right belief) and orthopraxy (right deeds). Christianity sees orthopraxy as flowing from orthodoxy. Finney saw orthodoxy as irrelevant and emphasized orthopraxy.....The pharisaical error was just the opposite. The pharisies depended upon their actions and conformity to their extraneous laws

Hebrew education is not based upon right deeds but right laws. Hebrew children are taught Law, not morality. When you understand that difference you will understand pharisaism. 10 years of such immersion helped me to do so.

Also, Christ's issues was not against extraneous law but against rigorous religion - (or will you now accuse Paul of pharsaism?) - whether action or information their rigor was an attempt to control existance with God. Christ's interactions with them consistently show that their handle on God is ineffectual and truly nonexistant. This trap which Christ rails against so consistantly is no different than praxis controlled by orthodoxy - action only sanction by doctrine. In that order no one ever trusts in God but only their own understanding of God. This deems God unable to work outside of human paradigm. This is the risk we run when we bring all of the Gospel down to "substitutionary atonement", small, controllable, human.

 

[inchristalone221]

The law is not the means by which we are just before God. The demand of God is 100% conformity with His law. If one does not meet this standard, they stand before an infinitely holy God deserving of infinite punishment. Without substitutionary atonement, we remain enemies of God, slaves to sin, and incapable of right practice. All the discipleship and moral reform possible without saving grace (read substitutionary atonement) cannot be with the right intentions, because the heart of man unregenerate is above all things deceitful and desperately wicked. I can't think of who said it, but it is a trustworthy saying that until a man is born of God all his good deeds are but glorified sins.

 

[CCWoody]

With the doctrines Finney held, I find it hard to call him a Christian. He denied original sin, substitutionary atonement, the need for supernatural new birth, and a host of other doctrines essential to the Christian faith.

You forgot to mention that Charles Finney obviously came from another world through the Stargate and attempted to make slaves out of this population. I know this cause all of his pictures have glowing eyes (some more than other's).

Charles Finney: A wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

[JJB]

These ppl look nice and do a lot for their community, too.

http://www.herchurch.org/

Check out the video, but first take your high blood pressure pills. 1 Thess comes to mind.

 

[Imblessed]

These ppl look nice and do a lot for their community, too.

http://www.herchurch.org/

Check out the video, but first take your high blood pressure pills. 1 Thess comes to mind.

."...only in San Francisco......." as the saying goes....

 

[Imblessed]

You forgot to mention that Charles Finney obviously came from another world through the Stargate and attempted to make slaves out of this population. I know this cause all of his pictures have glowing eyes (some more than other's).

Charles Finney: A wolf in sheep's clothing.

you know, that picture IS a little creepy......