SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Articles and Sermons : The Controversy surrounding Charles Finney.

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 Next Page )
PosterThread
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 39795
Canada

Online!
 The Controversy surrounding Charles Finney.

I recieved a few emails from a dear brother concerned abit about some of the doctrinal stances of Charles G. Finney. I don't think its that profitable to argue over these points but to show both sides of the coin and for others to give their input could help people on both sides. I will try and respond myself to alot of the comments made by brother Phillip below.

NOTE: these are not my comments below but of brother Phillip.

---

"Finney denied that the righteousness of Christ is the sole ground of our justification, teaching instead that sinners must reform their own hearts in order to be acceptable to God. (His emphasis on self-reformation apart from divine enablement is again a strong echo of Pelagianism.)
Finney spends a considerable amount of time in several of his works arguing against "that theological fiction of imputation" [Memoirs, 58]. Those who have any grasp of Protestant doctrine will see immediately that his attack at this point is a blatant rejection of the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide). It places him outside the pale of true evangelical Protestantism. The doctrine of imputed righteousness is the very heart of the historic difference between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. The whole doctrine of justification by faith hinges on this concept. But Finney flatly rejected it. He derided the concept of imputation as unjust: "I could not but regard and treat this whole question of imputation as a theological fiction, somewhat related to our legal fiction of John Doe and Richard Roe" [Memoirs, 60]. Dismissing the many biblical texts that expressly say righteousness is imputed to believers for their justification, he wrote,


These and similar passages are relied upon, as teaching the doctrine of an imputed righteousness; and such as these: "The Lord our righteousness" (Phil. 3:9). . . . "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. . . [Charles Finney, Systematic Theology (Minneapolis: Bethany), 372-73].

Here Finney offers no cogent explanation of what he imagines Scripture does mean when it speaks repeatedly of the imputation of righteousness to believers (e.g., Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:4-6). But throughout all his discussions of imputation Finney repeatedly insists that neither merit nor guilt can righteously be imputed from one person to another. Therefore, Finney argues, the righteousness of Christ can provide no ground for the justification of sinners. Furthermore, he continues:
[Subhead:] Foundation of the justification of penitent believers in Christ. What is the ultimate ground or reason of their justification?
1. 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 [Systematic Theology, 373].


By employing terms such as "exact" and "literal," Finney caricatured the position he was opposing. (The immediate context of this quotation makes clear that he was arguing against the position outlined in the Westminster Confession, which accords with all major Protestant creeds and theologians on the matter of justification.) But Finney could not obscure his own position: Having decided that the doctrine of imputation was a "theological fiction," he was forced to deny not only the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers, but also the imputation of the sinner's guilt to Christ on the cross. Under Finney's system, Christ could not have actually borne anyone else's sin or suffered sin's full penalty in their place and in their stead (contra Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 2:2). Finney therefore rejected the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. (We shall deal with this in more detail below).
Finney's position on these matters also caused him to define justification in subjective, rather than objective, terms. Protestants have historically insisted that justification is a purely forensic declaration, giving the penitent sinner an immediate right standing before God on the merit of Christ's righteousness, not their own (cf. Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:9). By forensic, we mean that it is a legal declaration, like a courtroom verdict or a marriage pronouncement ("I now pronounce you husband and wife"). It changes the person's external status rather than affecting some kind of internal change; it is a wholly objective reality.
The subjective transformation of the believer that conforms us to Christ's image is sanctification—a subsequent and separate reality, distinct from justification. Since the dawn of the Protestant Reformation, the virtually unanimous Protestant consensus has been that justification is in no sense grounded in or conditioned on our sanctification. Catholicism, on the other hand, mingles justification and sanctification, making sanctification a prerequisite to final justification.
Finney sided with Rome on this point. His rejection of the doctrine of imputation left him with no alternative: "Gospel justification is not to be regarded as a forensic or judicial proceeding" [Systematic Theology, 360].
Finney departed further from historic Protestantism by expressly denying that Christ's righteousness is the sole ground of the believer's justification, arguing instead that justification is grounded only in the benevolence of God. (This position is identical to that of Socinians and theological liberals.)
Obfuscating the issue further, Finney listed several "necessary conditions" (insisting these are not, technically, grounds) of justification. These "necessary conditions" included Christ's atoning death, the Christian's own faith, repentance, sanctification, and—most ominously—the believer's ongoing obedience to the law. Finney wrote,

There can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground[2] of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law. This is of course denied by those who hold that gospel justification, or the justification of penitent sinners, is of the nature of a forensic or judicial justification. They hold to the legal maxim, that what a man does by another he does by himself, and therefore the law regards Christ's obedience as ours, on the ground that He obeyed for us [Systematic Theology, 362].

Of course, Finney denied that Christ "obeyed for us," claiming that since Christ was Himself obligated to render full obedience to the law, His obedience could justify Himself alone. "It can never be imputed to us," Finney intoned [Systematic Theology, 362].
The clear implication of Finney's view is that justification ultimately hinges on the believer's own obedience, and God will not truly and finally pardon the repentant sinner until after that penitent one completes a lifetime of faithful obedience. Finney himself said as much, employing the undiluted language of perfectionism. He wrote,

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 turn to Christ, and renew his faith and love, as a condition of his 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 connection, 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 [Systematic Theology, 368-69].

Thus Finney insisted that justification ultimately hinges on the believer's own performance, not Christ's. Here Finney once more turns his guns against the doctrine of imputation:
Those who hold that justification by imputed righteousness is a forensic proceeding, take a view of final or ultimate justification, according with their view of the nature of the transaction. With them, faith receives an imputed righteousness, and a judicial justification. The first act of faith, according to them, introduces the sinner into this relation, and obtains for him a perpetual justification. They maintain that after this first act of faith it is impossible for the sinner to come into condemnation; [Systematic Theology, 369].

But isn't that precisely what Scripture teaches? John 3:18: "He that believeth on him is not condemned." John 5:24: "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." Galatians 3:13: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." It was immediately following his great discourse on justification by faith that the apostle Paul wrote, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1). But Charles Finney was unwilling to let Christians rest in the promise of "no condemnation," and he ridiculed the idea of security in Christ as a notion that would lead to licentious living. He continues, again caricaturing the position he opposes:
that, being once justified, he is always thereafter justified, whatever he may do; indeed that he is never justified by grace, as to sins that are past, upon condition that he ceases to sin; that Christ's righteousness is the ground, and that his own present obedience is not even a condition of his justification, so that, in fact, his own present or future obedience to the law of God is, in no case, and in no sense, a sine qua non of his justification, present or ultimate.
Now this is certainly another gospel from the one I am inculcating. It is not a difference merely upon some speculative or theoretic point. It is a point fundamental to the gospel and to salvation, if any one can be [Systematic Theology, 369.]
As the final paragraph of that excerpt makes clear, Finney himself clearly understood that what he proclaimed was a different gospel from that of historic Protestantism. By denying the forensic nature of justification, Finney was left with no option but to regard justification as a subjective thing grounded not in Christ's redemptive work but in the believer's own obedience—and therefore a matter of works, not faith alone.
Finney vs. Original Sin
As noted above, Finney rejected the notion that Adam's guilty, sinful nature is inherited by all his offspring. In doing so, he was repudiating the clear teaching of Scripture:


The judgment arose from one transgression [Adam's sin] resulting in condemnation . . . . By the transgression of the one [Adam], death reigned . . . . Through one transgression [Adam's sin] there resulted condemnation to all men . . . . Through the one man's disobedience [Adam's sin] the many were made sinners (Rom. 5:16-19).
Predictably, Finney appealed to human wisdom to justify his rejection of clear biblical teaching: "What law have we violated in inheriting this [sin] nature? What law requires us to have a different nature from that which we possess? Does reason affirm that we are deserving of the wrath and curse of God for ever, for inheriting from Adam a sinful nature?" [Systematic Theology, 320].
Naturally, Finney's denial of original sin also led him to reject the doctrine of human depravity. He flatly denied that fallen humanity suffers from any "constitutional sinfulness" or sinful corruption of human nature:

"Moral depravity cannot consist in any attribute of nature or constitution, nor in any lapsed or fallen state of nature. . . . Moral depravity, as I use the term, does not consist in, nor imply a sinful nature, in the sense that the human soul is sinful in itself. It is not a constitutional sinfulness" [Systematic Theology, 245].
Instead, Finney insisted, "depravity" is a purely voluntary condition, and therefore, sinners have the power simply to will otherwise. In other words, Finney was insisting that all men and women have a natural ability to obey God. Sin results from wrong choices, not from a fallen nature. According to Finney, sinners can freely reform their own hearts, and must do so themselves if they are to be redeemed. Once again, this is sheer Pelagianism:

"[Sinners] are under the necessity of first changing their hearts, or their choice of an end, before they can put forth any volitions to secure any other than a selfish end. And this is plainly the everywhere assumed philosophy of the Bible. That uniformly represents the unregenerate as totally depraved,[3] and calls upon them to repent, to make themselves a new heart" [Systematic Theology, 249].
Finney was therefore not ashamed to take credit for his own conversion. Having rejected sola gratia, Finney had destroyed the gospel's safeguard against boasting (Eph. 2:9). As John MacArthur points out,
In Finney's telling of [his conversion] story, it becomes clear that he believed his own will was the determinative factor that brought about his salvation: "On a Sabbath evening [in the autumn of 1821,] I made up my mind that I would settle the question of my soul's salvation at-once, that if it were possible I would make my peace with God" [Memoirs, 16, emphasis added]. Evidently under intense conviction, Finney went into the woods, where he made a promise "that I would give my heart to God [that day] or die in the attempt [Memoirs, 16]. [John MacArthur, Ashamed of the Gospel, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1993), 236.]
Finney vs. Substitutionary Atonement
What seemed to chafe Finney most about evangelical Christianity was the belief that Christ's atonement is a penal satisfaction offered to God. Finney wrote, "I had read nothing on the subject [of the atonement] except my Bible, & what I had there found on the subject I had interpreted as I would have understood the same or like passages in a law book" [Memoirs, 42].
Thus applying nineteenth-century American legal standards to the biblical doctrine of atonement, he concluded that it would be legally unjust to impute the sinner's guilt to Christ or to impute Christ's righteousness to the sinner. As noted above, Finney labeled imputation a "theological fiction" [Memoirs, 58-61]. In essence, this was a denial of the core of evangelical theology, repudiating the heart of Paul's argument about justification by faith in Romans 3-5 (see especially Rom. 4:5)—in effect nullifying the whole gospel!
Further, by ruling out the imputation of guilt and righteousness, Finney was forced to argue that Christ's death should not be regarded as an actual atonement for others' sins. Finney replaced the doctrine of substitutionary atonement with a version of Grotius's "governmental theory" (the same view being revived by those today who tout "moral government theology").
The Grotian view of the atonement is laden with strong Pelagian tendencies. By cutting the sinner off from the imputation of Christ's righteousness, this view automatically requires sinners to attain a righteousness of their own (contra Rom. 10:3). When he embraced such a view of the atonement, Finney had no choice but to adopt a theology that magnifies human ability and minimizes God's role in changing human hearts. He wrote, for example,

There is nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature. A revival is not a miracle, nor dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means—as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means. . . . A revival is as naturally a result of the use of means as a crop is of the use of its appropriate means" [Charles Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, n.d.), 4-5].
Thus Finney constantly downplayed God's work in our salvation, understated the hopelessness of the sinner's condition, and overestimated the power of sinners to change their own hearts. When those errors are traced to their source, what we find is a deficient view of the atonement. Indeed, Finney's denial of vicarious atonement underlies and explains virtually all his theological aberrations.
The Fallout from Finney's Doctrines
Predictably, most of Finney's spiritual heirs lapsed into apostasy, Socinianism, mere moralism, cultlike perfectionism, and other related errors. In short, Finney's chief legacy was confusion and doctrinal compromise. Evangelical Christianity virtually disappeared from western New York in Finney's own lifetime. Despite Finney's accounts of glorious "revivals," most of the vast region of New England where he held his revival campaigns fell into a permanent spiritual coldness during Finney's lifetime and more than a hundred years later still has not emerged from that malaise. This is directly owing to the influence of Finney and others who were simultaneously promoting similar ideas.
The Western half of New York became known as "the burnt-over district," because of the negative effects of the revivalist movement that culminated in Finney's work there. These facts are often obscured in the popular lore about Finney. But even Finney himself spoke of "a burnt district" [Memoirs, 78], and he lamented the absence of any lasting fruit from his evangelistic efforts. He wrote,


I was often instrumental in bringing Christians under great conviction, and into a state of temporary repentance and faith . . . . [But] falling short of urging them up to a point, where they would become so acquainted with Christ as to abide in Him, they would of course soon relapse into their former state [cited in B. B. Warfield, Studies in Perfectionism, 2 vols. (New York: Oxford, 1932), 2:24].
One of Finney's contemporaries registered a similar assessment, but more bluntly:

During ten years, hundreds, and perhaps thousands, were annually reported to be converted on all hands; but now it is admitted, that real converts are comparatively few. It is declared, even by [Finney] himself, that "the great body of them are a disgrace to religion" [cited in Warfield, 2:23].
B. B. Warfield cited the testimony of Asa Mahan, one of Finney's close associates,
. . . who tells us—to put it briefly—that everyone who was concerned in these revivals suffered a sad subsequent lapse: the people were left like a dead coal which could not be reignited; the pastors were shorn of all their spiritual power; and the evangelists—"among them all," he says, "and I was personally acquainted with nearly every one of them—I cannot recall a single man, brother Finney and father Nash excepted, who did not after a few years lose his unction, and become equally disqualified for the office of evangelist and that of pastor."
Thus the great "Western Revivals" ran out into disaster. . . . Over and over again, when he proposed to revisit one of the churches, delegations were sent him or other means used, to prevent what was thought of as an affliction. . . . Even after a generation had passed by, these burnt children had no liking for the fire [Warfield, 2:26-28].
Finney grew discouraged with the revival campaigns and tried his hand at pastoring in New York City before accepting the presidency of Oberlin College. During those post-revivalist years, he turned his attention to devising a doctrine of Christian perfectionism. Perfectionist ideas, in vogue at the time, were a whole new playground for serious heresy on the fringes of evangelicalism—and Finney became one of the best-known advocates of perfectionism. The evil legacy of the perfectionism touted by Finney and friends in the mid-nineteenth century has been thoroughly critiqued by B. B. Warfield in his important work Studies in Perfectionism. Perfectionism was the logical consequence of Finney's Pelagianism, and its predictable result was spiritual disaster."

Phillip R. Johnson


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2004/8/16 10:32Profile
KeithLaMothe
Member



Joined: 2004/3/28
Posts: 354


 Re: The Controversy surrounding Charles Finney.

Finney was his own man, no doubt. So was Edwards, long before him, who could have been called a "new school Calvinist." Even the first generation of Edwards' disciples were very different from the man himself, and their disciples apparently continued down that road, leading to Charles Grandison Finney. Finney had elements of Calvinism (being a Presbyterian, at least in affiliation) and believed in the doctrines of election and reprobation (his versions of them), but in total he's essentially a Pelagian. In many Christian circles (and, frankly, in my own) Pelagian = heretic. If we were to apply Wesley's anathema in his sermon on original sin (against those that denied original or congenital depravity), we would probably come to the conclusion that Wesley would have denied that Finney was saved.

Brother Phil Johnson is worth listening to, he's a Reformed Baptist, has a great sense of humor, and has been in pastoral (I think) work (with John MacArthur, at least part of the time) for quite a while. I'm rather impressed with what I've read of his work.

As for Finney... I don't know what to make of him, I find many of his writings extremely helpful, but when it comes down to it I think he taught a rather different Gospel than I believe.

 2004/8/16 10:58Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Having grown up under a form of Oberlin theology I must react by saying that Charles Finney believed quite simply that a person must live right call themselves saved. that is 'old school Missouri lingo' I suppose, but I have to agree to an extent. I would only add to the answer by saying, "if you are saved you WILL live right." Having studied both John Macarthur and Charles Finney and used both of their materials I see a fundamental difference in how they arrive at near the same basic conclusions. John Macarthur does not hold to an easy believism. He is a Calvinist- but to a Armenian- some of those views are heretical also. The truth is God expects us to walk in the Spirit and IF we do that- then we are His children. These issues will all come to light as time goes on.

It was Charles Finney that is responsible most for challenging strongly the idea that a Christian can live in disobedience to God and claim the obedience of Christ. His strong stance balanced the scales of a doctrine that had turned aside from its original intent. We can discuss these issues from now till dooms day and likely we will only have divisions and schisms. Finney is hated by many ultra-Calvinists as it only takes a quick Google search to see. But even Charles Stanley and Billy Graham honor him and his rightful place as minister of the Gospel. I pray we need not debate those long standing arguments that are all but dead to reach our generation for Christ and see revival in our lands. Personally I split the horns of those doctrines and go on holding fast to what is good.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/8/16 11:38Profile
InTheLight
Member



Joined: 2003/7/31
Posts: 2850
Phoenix, Arizona USA

 Re:

Quote:
. . . who tells us—to put it briefly—that everyone who was concerned in these revivals suffered a sad subsequent lapse: the people were left like a dead coal which could not be reignited; the pastors were shorn of all their spiritual power; and the evangelists—"among them all," he says, "and I was personally acquainted with nearly every one of them—I cannot recall a single man, brother Finney and father Nash excepted, who did not after a few years lose his unction, and become equally disqualified for the office of evangelist and that of pastor."



This seems to be in direct contradiction to quotes from others of Finney's time who claim 80% of those converted could be found in regular church attendance 10 years later. So who are we to believe?

In Christ,

Ron


_________________
Ron Halverson

 2004/8/16 14:59Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 39795
Canada

Online!
 Re:

Without going that much into the article presented above at this point, I am seeing to major issues raised of importance.

1) That finney's theology has heretical and off tangent, especially later on in his life.

2) That the revivals that insued from finney's work in some ways ruined those areas in the long run and begeted dryness and coldness to the gospel, ie the burnt out district of upper newyork (so called after revivals took place there years after).

I think its mentionable to note that in alot of ways we are hearing 2 fairly opposite sides of the tangent. I have spoken to some to elivate finneys theology and teachings to a dangerous place. And I have seen others de-bunk his name just because of some directions he took in his throughts and teachings.

We need to know facts! as brother Ron said who is to be believed.

There is a fact that he swept 100,000 souls into the kingdom, not just appeals to be saved but people there went through the process of becoming a 'new creature' in Christ, putting off the old man and putting on the new man. Losing the past way of life and its sinful habits and mannerisms. And its remarked that these converts were still standing 90%+ of them after 10 years. This made a notable difference on the society and the moral values of these districts. I dont think that can be argued or can it be?

Much of his so called heretical doctrines were established later on in his life. But from a strict calvinist viewpoint he was a heretic as soon as he re-read the westminister catechism and stated something to the effect that "I can't agree with half of this" and therefore be expelled by his presbyterian church (denomination).

I think when it comes down to it you can always find a few wrong tendencies in any man's doctrine. Unless you are a regurgetator of a doctrinal book.


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2004/8/16 15:10Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
We need to know facts! as brother Ron said who is to be believed.



If love be an indicator, it can be noted that while some have burned at the stake those who held heretical beliefs- yet Finney is known as the preacher who to a great degree ushered in the Emancipation Proclamation. He loved His neighbor as himself in that regard- and at a time when holding such beliefs could have well cost him his head.

We must also remember that Finney was challenging what we are going to be challenging soon also- and it is the heresy of Universalism. He deals with some of this in God cannot please sinners. I fear it is where the modern church growth movement is headed. Soon- everyones saved- it is the natural outworking of the marriage of easy believism and humanistic pragmatic charismania. Let us not discard Charles Finney- we can learn a lot from him in this hour and can battle the great deceptions coming upon the church with his well reasoned and bible based arguments.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/8/16 15:33Profile
KeithLaMothe
Member



Joined: 2004/3/28
Posts: 354


 Re:

Quote:
But even Charles Stanley and Billy Graham honor him and his rightful place as minister of the Gospel.

For the record, Charles Stanley is a rank antinomian and to my knowledge so is Graham. By this I mean that they believe if you've ever made a remotely credible profession of faith in Christ (i.e. responded to an altar call and prayed the sinner's prayer or some such) that you are saved and will remain saved even if you remain in your sin or later fall back into it (some of them even believe you stay saved even if you deny Christ). Finney would likely have preached such people into the ground. Calvinists like Edwards, Pink, and Spurgeon would have also done so in response to such heresy.

As for MacArthur being a heretic according to Arminian doctrine, that is strictly true, but I think we're operating on at least two different definitions of the word "heretic." One very simple definition is "someone who does not believe exactly as expounded in our standard of orthodoxy" (for conservative Presbyterians that standard is often the WCF), the definition I tend to mean by it is "someone who is so far off from our standard of orthodoxy that they are preaching a different Gospel, different God, or some other very serious and potentially damning error." I shy away from saying "so and so is not saved because he believes that," unless we're talking about Jehovah's Witnesses and the like, but neither would I be inclined to count on seeing men like Charles Stanley in heaven.

Quote:
Charles Finney believed quite simply that a person must live right [to?] call themselves saved.

I agree with that, and so do the 5-point Calvinists I know. We might have some differences when we get down to the particulars of what it means to "live right," though.

In any case, one of my main problems with Finney, or at least with the modern day Finneyites (Moral Government Theologoy) I know about, is that they believe that regeneration is not supernatural, but simply a matter of the sinner exercising his or her will to change.

I'd rather we not get bogged down in some huge debate over this, as I know Finney is one of the central historical figures in American Revivalism and had a ministry (as far as we can tell) that brought in thousands upon thousands. Nonetheless, I would like to know the truth about the man and his theology, from both sides.

 2004/8/16 18:15Profile
InTheLight
Member



Joined: 2003/7/31
Posts: 2850
Phoenix, Arizona USA

 Re:

Quote:
In any case, one of my main problems with Finney, or at least with the modern day Finneyites (Moral Government Theologoy) I know about, is that they believe that regeneration is not supernatural, but simply a matter of the sinner exercising his or her will to change.



I don't consider myself a "Finneyite" but I have read some of his stuff and I have not seen in his writings or sermons the belief that regeneration is "simply a matter of the sinner exercising his or her will to change".

As far as I can tell Finney believed that there are two moral agents involved in regeneration and conversion; He does not say there is no supernatural work in regeneration. Take for example the following clips from Finney's Systematic Theology;

[i]To be born again is the same thing in the Bible use of the term, as to have a new heart, to be a new creature, to pass from death unto life. In other words, to be born again is to have a new moral character, to become holy. To regenerate is to make holy. To be born of God, no doubt, expresses and includes the Divine agency, but it also includes and expresses that which the Divine agency is employed in effecting, namely, making the sinner holy. Certainly, a sinner is not regenerated whose moral character is unchanged. If he were, how could it be truly said, that whosoever is born of God overcometh the world, doth not commit sin, cannot sin, &c.? If regeneration does not imply and include a change of moral character in the subject, how can regeneration be made the condition of salvation? The fact is, the term regeneration, or the being born of God, is designed to express primarily and principally the thing done, that is, the making of a sinner holy, and expresses also the fact, that God's agency induces the change. Throw out the idea of what is done, that is, the change of moral character in the subject, and he would not be born again, he would not be regenerated, and it could not be truly said, in such a case, that God had regenerated him.[/i]

Finney goes on to say that this Divine Agency is not the only expression of the term regeneration;

[i] The thing done implies the turning or activity of the subject. It is nonsense to affirm that his moral character is changed without any activity or agency of his own. Passive holiness is impossible. Holiness is obedience to the law of God, the law of love, and of course consists in the activity of the creature.[/i]

[i]The fact is, that both terms[regeneration and conversion] imply the simultaneous exercise of both human and Divine agency. The fact that a new heart is the thing done, demonstrates the activity of the subject; and the word regeneration, or the expression "born of the Holy Spirit," asserts the Divine agency. [/i]

We must remember Finney was combating Calvanistic passivity that, taken to extremes, caused some to consider evangelistic outreach unnecessary.

In Christ,

Ron


_________________
Ron Halverson

 2004/8/16 20:23Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

I agree with that, and so do the 5-point Calvinists I know. We might have some differences when we get down to the particulars of what it means to "live right," though.



Personally I think the author of the article seems to be antinomian through and through. He seems to have an underlying belief of once-saved-always-saved-no-matter-what. In doing such, he actually departs from what he says Finney does, the doctrinal cry of the reformation. He would probably also like Arminian theology to semi-pelagian thought. Personally, Finney's conversion doesn't sound like such a shocker, it just doesn't jive with the Calvinistic doctrine that stands against the notion of us being free moral agents. Finney surely when he decided to commit his life to Christ had heard the gospel, and he would not have done what he did unless the Spirit of God had drawn him. Ah well...


_________________
Jimmy H

 2004/8/16 20:37Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 39795
Canada

Online!
 Re:

Quote:
As to the results of his work, there are two sides to the picture. "Flood tides of revival glory," said his biographer, Miller, were seen in the Rochester revivals, 10,000 were converted in one meeting, the whole city converted by 1832 and hundreds of thousands were gathered in the complete series of Western Revivals (1825-32). One finds other writers lauding the ‘success in similar terms, but there is serious misrepresentation, for they fail to stress the situation as it was a few years after! Dr. A. B. Dod writing in 1835 said: "It is now generally understood that the numerous converts of the new measures have been in most cases like the morning cloud and the early dew. In some places, not a fifth or even a tenth part of them remain."16 Those who did remain were a constant source of trouble in the churches, being fanatical, discontented and censorious. Dod was decidedly against Finney and his work. He was of the Princetonian School and he found many pastors, evangelists and revival leaders to stand with him against the new measures. This then might well be dismissed as a biased judgement. B. B. Warfield gives, however, a number of comments from Finney’s close friends and fellow labourers. James Boyle writing to Finney in 1834: "I have revisited many of these fields (where we laboured) and groaned in spirit to see the sad, frigid, casual, contentious state into which the churches had fallen"17—this written three months after Finney had left. Asa Mahan, Finney’s fellow worker and close friend for the whole of his life, tells us that everyone who was concerned in these revivals suffered a sad, subsequent lapse; the people were left like a dead coal which could not be reignited; the pastors were shorn of all their spiritual power and all of the evangelists, with the exception of brother Finney and father Nash, became quite unfit to be evangelists and pastors. Finney himself said, "I was able to bring many to temporary repentance and faith!" He said again in 1835, "They soon relapse into their former state". In his Systematic Theology he confesses that the greater number of his "converts" were a disgrace to religion. As for the lasting aspect the results in the churches were disastrous.
taken from: [url=http://www.karaministries.com/articles/Revival/Charles%20Finney%20and%20the%20Disappearance%20of%20Revival.htm]karaministries.com[/url]


Now of course this excert and the article mentioned above is highly critical of finney and uses Dod's writings which are another scholary critism of Finneys revival methods, but it does show something of an inconsistency and there are 2 stories floating around. One is that his converts didnt last and they slumped back down into religious apathy. The Second story is saying that he converted 500,000+ people and that most of them 75% 10 years later were still strong in the Lord. I think it is worthy to hear and read what finney and the closest to finney said. If they are liars then so be it and then we cannot trust anything from their mouths. But if they are truthful which I believe they would be then its worth finding out. The problem I have taking the comments of Dod and others is that they were not labouring with Finney and surely sitting behind your desk writing things is different then personally being involved.

As for the comments in the above quote I would say that there were times when there was a backslidding of the adherants and at times and places the revival fire grew very dim. These confessions probably are true of his followers and himself but they do not characterize his [b]whole[/b] ministry! but just a very small part of it. It was a glamerous wonderful revival that God worked through this man but there were low points of course just as there are in life.


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2004/8/17 0:19Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy