Upvote
0
BTW, what does OP stand for? Sorry for the ignorance.
The discussion should center around the OP not other pros and cons of the man's life.
Finney's ministry was founded on duplicity from the beginning. He obtained his license to preach as a Presbyterian minister by professing adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith. But he later admitted that he was almost totally ignorant of what the document taught. Here, in Finney's own words, is a description of what occurred when he went before the council whose task it was to determine if he was spiritually qualified and doctrinally sound:
Unexpectedly to myself they asked me if I received the Confession of faith of the Presbyterian church. I had not examined it;—that is, the large work, containing the Catechisms and Presbyterian Confession. This had made no part of my study. I replied that I received it for substance of doctrine, so far as I understood it. But I spoke in a way that plainly implied, I think, that I did not pretend to know much about it. However, I answered honestly, as I understood it at the time [Charles Finney, The Memoirs of Charles Finney: The Complete Restored Text (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1989), 53-54].Despite his Clintonesque insistence that he "answered honestly," it is clear that Finney deliberately misled his examiners. (His ability to parse legal terms would have served him well had he been a politician in the late Twentieth Century. But he betrays an appalling brashness for a clergyman in his own era.) Rather than plainly admitting he was utterly ignorant of his denomination's doctrinal standards, he says he "spoke in a way" that implied ("I think") that he did not know "much" about those documents. The truth is that he had never even examined the Confession of Faith and knew nothing at all about it. He was woefully unprepared for ordination, and he had no business seeking a license to preach under the presbytery's auspices. "I was not aware that the rules of the presbytery required them to ask a candidate if he accepted the Presbyterian Confession of faith," Finney wrote. "Hence I had never read it" [Memoirs, 60.] So when he told his ordination council that he received the Confession "for substance of doctrine," nothing could have been further from the truth!
At first, being no theologian, my attitude in respect to [Gale's] peculiar views was rather that of negation or denial, than that of opposing any positive view to his. I said, your positions are not proved." I often said, "They are insusceptible of proof." So I thought then, and so I think now. . . . I had nowhere to go but directly to the Bible, and to the philosophy or workings of my own mind as they were revealed in consciousness. My views took on a positive type but slowly. I at first found myself unable to receive his peculiar views; and secondly, gradually formed views of my own in opposition to them, which appeared to me to be unequivocally taught in the Bible. [Memoirs, 55]
Finney never attended college,
Thanks for the reply. People are tempted in various ways or should I say, people have different weaknesses. I have never had a weakness for alcohol or drugs. But I have had a weakness of anger and loosing my cool. And I have displayed that here, which wasn't Christ like at all. Funny think is as I am pointing out the others whom are not Christ like, I am being convicted by the Holy Spirit to look in the mirror, which I have an didn't like what I saw.
Again, I apologize and will watch myself. If anyone sees me getting upset or angry, you have my permission to point it out so I can work on it. Of course the Holy Spirit has been doing a good job of it too...LOL.
Of calvinism, I can truly admit that I am wrong on some points. I can't agree totally with it nor can I agree totally with arminianism, so I am mostly in the middle. However, let me say that I have never had any concerns about either until joined this forum a few weeks ago. For me, I am more concerned with making sure my life lines up with Christ's life, and let me tell you, I have a zillion miles to go. But, that doesn't mean I don't try.
I am more concerned with bible study that doesn't necessarily involves these two theologies, but more on how I can live more like Christ and how I can show the lost what salvation is.
Anyway, I will probably just sit back and read some. Thanks!
I have continued to follow this discussion. I must confess that I have not read up on Charles Finney in the past, although had heard of him. I also know that it is easy to take snippets from here and there, of what someone says, which standing alone can give an inaccurate impression. The big one for me, however, is that Billy Graham seems to have endorsed his work. If he did that, it is good enough for me. Doesn't mean I would agree with all his teachings, just that God works through a whole variety of people to reach others for Christ--and this man seems to have been willing to be an instrument to reach souls for the kingdom.
No offense meant arch, but that sounds an awful lot like "the end justifies the means". Paul put it a different way, asking "Shall we sin more that Grace may abound?"
Just some food for thought....
But it is said, that the Bible speaks of the righteousness of faith. "What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith."--Rom. ix. 30. "And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."--Phil. iii. 9. These and similar passages are relied upon, as teaching the doctrine of an imputed righteousness;..."Christ our righteousness" is Christ the author or procurer of our justification. But this does not imply that he procures our justification by imputing his obedience to us.
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.
The Presbyterian Confession of Faith affirms as follows: chapter on Justification, section 3--"Christ by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father's justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for anything in them, their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners...What is to be understood here by exact justice, and by a real, full satisfaction to his Father's justice? I suppose all orthodox Christians to hold, that every sinner and every sin, strictly on the score of justice, deserves eternal death or endless suffering. Did the framers of this confession hold that Christ bore the literal penalty of the law for each of the saints? or did they hold that by virtue of his nature and relations, his suffering, though indefinitely less in amount than was deserved by the transgressors, was a full equivalent to public justice, or governmentally considered, for the execution of the literal penalty upon the transgressors? If they meant this latter, I see no objection to it. But if they meant the former, namely, that Christ suffered in his own person the full amount strictly due to all the elect, I say:--
(1.) That it was naturally impossible.
(2.) That his nature and relation to the government of God was such as to render it wholly unnecessary to the safe forgiveness of sin, that he should suffer precisely the same amount deserved by sinners.
(3.) That if, as their substitute, Christ suffered for them the full amount deserved by them, then justice has no claim upon them, since their debt is fully paid by the surety, and of course the principal is, in justice, discharged. And since it is undeniable that the atonement was made for the whole posterity of Adam, it must follow that the salvation of all men is secured upon the ground of "exact justice." This, as has been said, is the conclusion to which Huntington and his followers came. This doctrine of literal imputation, is one of the strongholds of universalism, and while this view of atonement and justification is held they cannot be driven from it.
(4.) If he satisfied justice for them, in the sense of literally and exactly obeying for them, why should his suffering be imputed to them as a condition of their salvation? Surely they could not need both the imputation of his perfect obedience to them, so as to be accounted in law as perfectly righteous, and also the imputation of his sufferings to them, as if he had not obeyed for them. Is God unrighteous? Does he exact of the surety, first, the literal and full payment of the debt, and secondly, perfect personal obedience for and in behalf of the sinner? Does he first exact full and perfect obedience, and then the same amount of suffering as if there had been no obedience? And this, too, of his beloved Son?
(5.) What Christian ever felt, or can feel in the presence of God, that he has a right to demand justification in the name of Christ, as due to him on the ground of "exact justice." Observe, the framers of the Confession just quoted, studiously represent all the grace exercised in the justification of sinners, as confined to the two acts of giving his Son and accepting the substitution. This done, Christ fully pays the debt, fully and exactly satisfies his Father's justice. You now need not, must not conceive of the pardon of sin as grace or favour. To do this is, according to the teaching of this Confession, to dishonour Christ. It is to reject his righteousness and salvation. What think you of this? One act of grace in giving his Son, and consenting to the substitution, and all forgiveness, all accepting and trusting as righteous, is not grace, but "exact justice." To pray for forgiveness, as an act of grace, is apostacy from Christ. Christian! Can you believe this? No; in your closet, smarting under the sting of a recently committed sin, or broken down and bathed in tears, you cannot find it in your heart to demand "exact justice" at the hand of God, on the ground that Christ has fully and literally paid your debt. To represent the work and death of Christ as the ground of justification in this sense, is a snare and a stumbling-block. If this is the true account of it, antinomianism must be the true gospel, than which a more false and licentious dogma never existed. But this view that I have just examined, contradicts the necessary convictions of every saint on earth. For the truth of this assertion I appeal to the universal consciousness of saints. Whose business is it to cry heresy, and sound the alarm of error through the land!
By sanctification being a condition of justification, the following things are intended.
(1.) That present, full, and entire consecration of heart and life to God and his service, is an unalterable condition of present pardon of past sin, and of present acceptance with God.
(2.) That the penitent soul remains justified no longer than this full-hearted consecration continues. If he falls from his first love into the spirit of self-pleasing, he falls again into bondage to sin and to the law, is condemned, and must repent and do his "first work," must return to Christ, and renew his faith and love, as a condition of his salvation. This is the most express teaching of the Bible, as we shall fully see....
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
Another fact that these Finney lovers do not recognize is the Charles G. Finney denied that Christ could and did die for sinners, all sinners:
"If he [Christ] had obeyed the Law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non of our salvation"Ibid, p. 206
The next inquiry is into the design of the atonement.
That Christ's obedience to the moral law as a covenant of works, did not constitute the atonement.
(1.) Christ owed obedience to the moral law, both as God and man. He was under as much obligation to be perfectly benevolent as any moral agent is. It was, therefore, impossible for him to perform any works of supererogation; that is, so far as obedience to law was concerned, he could, neither as God nor as man, do anything more than fulfil its obligations.
(2.) Had he obeyed for us, he would not have suffered for us. Were his obedience to be substituted for our obedience, he need not certainly have both fulfilled the law for us, as our substitute, under a covenant of works, and at the same time have suffered as a substitute, in submitting to the penalty of the law.
(3.) If he obeyed the law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine quà non of our salvation?
(4.) The idea that any part of the atonement consisted in Christ's obeying the law for us, and in our stead and behalf, represents God as requiring:--
(i.) The obedience of our substitute.
(ii.) The same suffering, as if no obedience had been rendered.
(iii.) Our repentance.
(iv.) Our return to personal obedience.
(v.) And then represents him as, after all, ascribing our salvation to grace. Strange grace this, that requires a debt to be paid several times over, before the obligation is discharged!
2. I must show that the atonement was not a commercial transaction.
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, and paying down the same amount of suffering in his own person that justice would have exacted of them. To this I answer--
(1.) It is naturally impossible,
It is objected, that the doctrine of the atonement is inconsistent with the idea of mercy and forgiveness.
(1.) This takes for granted, that the atonement was the literal payment of a debt, and that Christ suffered all that was due to all the sinners for whom he died, so that their discharge or pardon is an act of justice, and not of mercy. But this is by no means the view of God which the nature of the atonement presents.
It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one;
Charles Finney even went so far as to deny that the new birth was a divine gift, insisting:
"regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness to love or benevolence," as moved by the moral influence of Christ’s moving example..."Original sin, physical regeneration, and all their kindred and resulting dogmas, are alike subversive of the gospel, and repulsive to the human intelligence".Ibid, p. 224, 236
regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness to love or benevolence; or, in other words, in turning from the supreme choice of self-gratification, to the supreme love of God and the equal love of his neighbour.
Original or constitutional sinfulness, 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 as relics of a most unreasonable and confused philosophy.
It also contradicts the Bible representation, that men regenerate each other. "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel."--1 Cor. iv. 15.
That this change is effected through the truth presented by the Holy Spirit, or by a Divine moral persuasion.
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.
Mr. Finney asserts the perfect, unqualified ability of man to regenerate himself. It is easier, indeed, he says, for him to comply with the commands of God than to reject them. He tells his congregation that they 'might with much more propriety ask, when the meeting is dismissed, how they should go home, than to ask how they should change their hearts.' He declares that they who teach the sinner that he is unable to repent and believe without the aid of the Holy Spirit, insult his understanding and mock his hopes, -- they utter a libel upon Almighty God, -- they make God an infinite tyrant, -- they lead the sinner very consistently to justify himself, -- if what they say is true, the sinner ought to hate God, and so should all other beings hate him, as some have humorously and truly said, they preach, 'You can and you can't, you shall and you shan't, you will and you won't, you'll be damn'd if you do, you'll be damn'd if you don't.'..
Most professors of religion, he says, pray for sinners, that God would enable them to repent. Such prayers he declares to be an insult to God. He thinks it a great error to tell the sinner to pray for a new heart, or to pray for the Holy Ghost to show him his sins. 'Some persons,' he says, 'seem to suppose that the Spirit is employed to give the sinner power, -- that he is unable to obey God without the Spirit's agency. I confess I am alarmed when I hear such declarations as these; and were it not that I suppose there is a sense in which a man's heart may be better than his head, I should feel bound to maintain that persons holding this sentiment were not Christians at all.'
We have certainly never met with a more singularly extravagant and unfortunate declaration than the one last quoted. Who are the persons who have held and taught this sentiment, so inconsistent with Christianity? Why, at the head of the list stand our Saviour and his apostles. 'No man,' said Christ, 'can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him.' And the apostles refer continually to the absolute dependence of man upon God for the necessary strength to perform his duties aright. Not one of those holy men felt that he was of himself 'sufficient for these things.' Their uniform feeling seems to have been, 'I can do all things through Christ, who strengtheneth me.' Mr. Finney not only believes that we can do all things without any strength from Christ, but he makes this one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. The apostles exhorted men to be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and they prayed for those to whom they wrote, that the Lord would strengthen them with might by his Spirit, that he would make them perfect, establish, strengthen, settle them. But Mr. Finney says, to pray that God would help the sinner to repent, is an insult to God; as if God had commanded the sinner to do what he cannot do. Now the Christian has at least as much ability to be perfectly holy as the sinner has to repent. God commands Christians to be perfect, and of course, when the apostles prayed that the Lord would strengthen them and make them perfect, they prayed 'as if God had commanded the Christian to do what he cannot do.' These prayers, then, uttered under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, must have been 'an insult to God!'
[d]octrine which is erroneous in such a way that Christians must divide themselves as a church from all who teach or accept it; those adhering to heresy are assumed to be lost, although Christians are unable to make definitive judgments on this matter. The opposite of orthodoxy. Adj.: “heretical.”
Certain Christian doctrines constitute the core of the faith. Central doctrines include the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, the atoning work of Christ on the cross, and salvation by grace through faith. These doctrines so comprise the essence of the Christian faith that to remove any of them is to make the belief system non-Christian.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets 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 Gods 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
...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 Gods glory.
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.
Benefactor said:Lets 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 Gods 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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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]
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. Lukes 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.
"the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one"
Jesus died for all men, but all men do not believe..
- 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
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.
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.
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.
[/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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?