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.
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,
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"
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
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.
Well, like I said before, I would need to see the entire document. At any rate, not gonna lose any sleep over this one, and gotta head off to bed. Without knowing anything firsthand about the man's teachings, all I can say is that if Billy Graham spoke favorably about him, then that says a lot. And I KNOW Billy Graham believes in salvation by grace and justification. Anyhow, done for the night.
But I don't understand why he is being looked to as the final authority on this or any issue. It is quite possible that Graham didn't have all the facts in regards to Finney.
Let's face it - based on what has been presented here in regards to Finney's teachings it can honestly be said that he led no one to a saving faith in Christ but to something completely different that is not the gospel.
Also - Graham taught the security of the believer - yet you don't agree on that. So why give credence to what he says about Finney but not this?
I don't know. I do understand that he has a place of honor in the Billy Graham Center. I would expect nothing less than strict integrity from Billy Graham, and suspect that with his international standing and exposure whatever the info about Charles Finney would have been brought to his attention. but that is IMO.
And that is the key--'what has been presented here.' What has been presented here are snippets from both sides, and I long ago discovered the importance of reading the entire document or treatise. As it is said, there are always two sides. But I really don't feel driven to do so in this case, it is not that big a thing to me personally. I do, however, have an interest in fairplay.
There are some things taught by a variety of Christian teachers which I do not agree with. There is wide disagreement between Christian teachers themselves on such matters. But God can use them all to accomplish good. I believe God works through a wide variety of teachers and believers, even though their knowledge may not be complete or correct in every detail. God will no doubt continue to guide them to a clearer understanding of Bible truth, whatever the issue may be.
Fairplay? Could have fooled me. There is enough documentation posted on Finney's erroneous teachings on this thread to fill up a novel. Hardly what I would call snipets.
Rather than taking an honest look at them you say the guy is alright because Billy Graham says he's alright.
So how about Charles Spurgeon - one of the great Calvinist preachers of the 1800's. Billy Graham had a lot of good things to say about him as well. Since Billy Graham endorsed him does he get your nod of approval too?
Well, you'll just have to take that up with your cohorts, because none of you will listen to us. The pathos is fairly obviously that they're posting anti-Calvinists positions, and we're defending against them.This is pathetic!!!! It is amazing how people ridicule others and act like they are the final word of God interpreters. I have seen almost no calvinist here to show Christ like love. All I see is hatred, aggressiveness and meanness to people who don't accept their theological views of predestination or free will.
... while offending copyrights. Buy yourself a copy. The citation's there.To draw small quotes from here and there is not linking to the entire document. If someone were to do that, then it could be studied as a whole.
But then there's ...Rather than reach a conclusion based on selected quotes, I would reserve judgment until being able to examine the treatise as a whole. But if Billy Graham speaks favorably, that certainly does have some weight IMO.
Or Billy Graham? I think the question you're raising is against your own statement.Indeed, Spurgeon without doubt had many inspiring and helpful thoughts to share. On these threads, I would raise questions if he or Finney or any other commentator were to be cited as a doctrinal authority or evidence of Bible truth.
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?