SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Finney, a heretic?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
PosterThread
Laviver
Member



Joined: 2009/1/11
Posts: 98


 Finney, a heretic?

I look up to Finney a lot. I know a lot of people here do too.

I understand his view of salvation was a bit different then most. He placed an almost full sanctification necessary to conversion. Like the repentance part of repent and believe on steriods. For God to accept you, you must have renounced sin in its entirety and thereby forsaken it all, it has no place or power in your life.

He had crazy fruit and revival happenings, so most don't question his methods or theology much.

Thoughts?
Thoughts?

 2009/10/1 0:31Profile
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re: Finney, a heretic?

Scripturally anyone who denies justification by faith alone, or the penal substitution of Christ is a heretic. Those are the things Paul warned against; men who would change the Gospel into "Grace plus something else to be saved".

I will catch a lot of heat for saying this, but Finney denied justification by faith ALONE, the penal substitution of Christ, and the fact that Christ died in the place of the sinner to fully pay for their redemption.

Let the truth speak for itself.

And so everyone knows, I used to love Finney and wanted to be just like him.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2009/10/1 1:16Profile
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re: Finney, a heretic?

Quote:
He had crazy fruit and revival happenings, so most don't question his methods or theology much.



No, but they will tear apart Rick Warren for being associated with non Christians totally unaware that Finney was a big player in the Prohibition Movement and joined with non Christians to promote it.

But you are right, people view him through a pragmatic lens and somehow think that because [i]it worked[/i] or was [i]successful[/i], somehow that trumps Biblical integrity.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2009/10/1 1:20Profile
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

To be fair, let me propose three statements-
Person A- "Rick Warren's church is so successful and has lots of conversions, he must teach the truth."

Person B- "Charles Finney was so successful and had lots of conversions, he must teach the truth."

Person C- "The Jehovah's Witnesses are the fastest growing group in many places, they must teach the truth."

I hope we can all see that success and growth do not equate to truth.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2009/10/1 1:34Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:

...Finney denied justification by faith ALONE, the penal substitution of Christ

What did Finney add to justification by faith?

Quote:
they will tear apart Rick Warren for being associated with non Christians totally unaware that Finney was a big player in the Prohibition Movement and joined with non Christians to promote it.

M.A.D.D. (Mothers Against Drunk Driving)
What is wrong with the church being associated with non Christians such as M.A.D.D.?

It is not that Rick Warren associates with non Christians, but his doctrine is what’s wrong with him; so your point is moot on this part.

Quote:
To be fair, let me propose three statements-
Person A- "Rick Warren's church...

Person B- "Charles Finney...

Person C- "The Jehovah's Witnesses...

We do not equate the success to truth, other wise Jesus did not have truth, because all left Him when being judged & crucified.

The only way one must be judged is comparing one's doctrine/theology to the correct interpretation of Scriptures.

 2009/10/1 10:21Profile
IWantAnguish
Member



Joined: 2006/6/15
Posts: 343


 Re:

Christians are not called to politicize religion through laws and rules. I could be wrong, but Christians should not associate themselves with an organization such as MADD, because people end up missing the point.

Drunk driving is not the issue.
It is a heart issue of lack of regeneration.

Same deal with pro-choice junk. It doesn't matter how much we try to institutionalize our beliefs onto people, rather to get to the heart of the matter.

Let us win the world by being radically different from the world; not by holding hands with it.

Preach total depravity of men, and wait on the Lord to bring conviction through the Holy Spirit. It works, even though it will get you crucified.

=========

As for Charles Finney-

You all can criticize him as much as you want. But how many of you can say that you have a passion for God as he did?

God speaks through rocks and donkeys. Do not elevate any man above what he is. God used Finney to show that a passion for God > head knowledge of theology.

Yes theology is important, and keeps us rooted in the Truth, but I believe the problem of the church today is not that we have heretical doctrines destroying America, rather a lack of passion and desire to know the God of the bible in a real relationship; especially preachers and pastors.

As Paul Washer stated: I would take a Leonard Ravenhill over 20 dead Calvinists.


_________________
Sba

 2009/10/1 11:57Profile
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Quote:
But how many of you can say that you have a passion for God as he did?



I understand what you are saying, BUT every devout Muslim believes they have a passion for God, as do Hindus, and Jews. Paul would call this "zeal without knowledge".

Finney preached another Gospel, one that was justification by sanctification. Or basically that faith alone in what Christ had done was not enough to save a person.

This has had an effect even to our present day in which most Evangelical Churches are more in line with the Roman Catholic Church and its views on justification(similar to Finney's by the way) than the views of Protestants.

The fact that Finney could equate the cross to "divine child abuse"(paraphrase) or say that Christ died to "justify" Himself only should cause great concern to any who read his works.

In regards to the "divine child abuse" comment, Brian Mclaren who is a known false teacher holds the same view. But because he's with the "emergent" tribe, his view gets torn to shreds. Yet Finney held the same view.

Many of the things people dislike about church like altar calls, and the emotional manipulation to "get decisions" came from Finney's ways of having meetings. Yet unknown to many they keep doing it because people are either ignorant of history, or arrogantly presume that "it works" so it must be "right".

It matters what we believe as you noted. But when error in regard to the Cross is taught, or the nature of Jesus, you cannot come to orthodox conclusions because you did not start at the same place. That is why I care, and why I will speak up about Finney. And while I understand brother Washer's point, I'd rather have the Calvis than to put people back under the yoke of self righteousness and the sense of despair that comes from most pietistic holiness teachers.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2009/10/1 13:15Profile









 Re:

God mightily used Finney. I pray that God will bless America with another revivalist like Finney! That is what our day needs!

Finney did not deny justiication by faith, he denied easy believism. He taught that the same faith that justifies is also the same faith that sanctifies. He said that the same faith which recieves Jesus as Savior also recieves Him as Lord. Finney had a proper view of faith.

Regarding the atonement, Finney taught that the suffering and death of Christ was a susbtitute for our eternal punishment of hell. This is right on. He said that our punishment can be set aside, our penalty can be remitted, when we repent and believe, because Jesus Christ died for us. This is right on.

I have read Finney's lectures on Revival and loved them. I read Finney's autobiography and loved it. I read Finney's Lectures on Theology and loved it. He has truly blessed my life.

 2009/10/1 13:47









 Re:

Quote:
The fact that Finney could equate the cross to "divine child abuse"(paraphrase)



Whenever Calvinists try to discredit Finney they falsely accuse him.

You are either:

1. A Liar
2. Ignorant

Finney never said that the atoneemnt was divine child abuse!!!!! Finney never said anything close. Finney said that the cross was a substitute for our punishment!

I challenge you to prove yourself not to be a liar by providing the quote you falsely accused Finney of.

It is easy to discedit Finney by putting words in his mouth and falsely accusing him. Why not try to actually quote him and then disprove what he taught.

Liars make me sick.

Quote:
Many of the things people dislike about church like altar calls, and the emotional manipulation to "get decisions" came from Finney's ways of having meetings



Wrong again. No wonder you don't like Finney, you don't know anything about him.

Finney would preach 28 nights in a row before giving an altar call. That is not like what we see today. He would thoroughly lay a foundation.

And Finney said that conversion was an intellectual decision, not an emotional decision, and therefore he would guard against emotionalism in his revivals. He would preach to the CONSCIENCE not to the EMOTIONS.

 2009/10/1 13:50









 Re:

[b]FINNEY ON FAITH[/b]

“By the assertion, that the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of Christ, is received by faith, to reign in the heart, it is intended, that he is actually trusted in, or submitted to by faith, and his influence suffered to control us. He does not guide and control us, by irresistible power or force, but faith confides the guidance of our souls to him. Faith receives and confides in him, and consents to be governed and directed by him. As his influence is moral, and not physical, it is plain that he can influence us no farther than we have confidence in him; that is, no farther than we trust or confide in him.” Charles Finney

“Faith lets God into the soul to dwell and reign there. Faith receives, not only the atonement and mediatorial work of Christ as a Redeemer from punishment, but it also receives Christ as king to set up his throne, and reign in the heart. Faith secures to the soul communion with God.” Charles Finney

“faith that is the condition of justification, is the faith that works by love. It is the faith through and by which Christ sanctifies the soul. A sanctifying faith unites the believer to Christ as his justification; but be it always remembered, that no faith receives Christ as a justification, that does not receive him as a sanctification, to reign within the heart.” Charles Finney

"The truth is, beyond all question, that sanctification is by faith as opposed to works. That is, faith receives Christ in all his offices, and in all the fullness of his relations to the soul; and Christ, when received, works in the soul to will and to do of all his good pleasure, not by a physical, but by a moral or persuasive working. Observe, he influences the will. This must be by a moral influence, if its actings are intelligent and free, as they must be to be holy. That is, if he influences the will to obey God, it must be by a divine moral suasion. The soul never in any instance obeys in a spiritual and true sense, except it be thus influenced by the indwelling Spirit of Christ. But whenever Christ is apprehended and received in any relation, in that relation he is full and perfect; so that we are complete in him.” Charles Finney

[b]FINNEY ON THE ATONEMENT[/b]

“the atonement is the governmental substitution of the sufferings of Christ for the punishment of sinners. It is a covering of their sins by his sufferings” Charles Finney

“That Christ's sufferings, and especially his death, were vicarious, has been abundantly shown
when treating the subject of atonement. I need not repeat here what I said there. Although Christ owed perfect obedience to the moral law for himself, and could not therefore obey as our substitute, yet since he perfectly obeyed, he owed no suffering to the law or to the Divine government on his own account. He could therefore suffer for us. That is, he could, to answer governmental purposes, substitute his death for the infliction of the penalty of the law on us. He could not perform works of supererogation, but he could endure sufferings of supererogation, in the sense that he did not owe them for himself. The doctrine of substitution, in the sense just named, appears everywhere in both Testaments.” Charles Finney

[b]FINNEY ON JUSTIFICATION [/b]

“UNDER A GRACIOUS DISPENSATION, A RETURN TO FULL OBEDIENCE' TO MORAL LAW IS NOT DISPENSED WITH AS A CONDITION OF SALVATION, BUT THIS OBEDIENCE IS SECURED BY THE INDWELLING SPIRIT OF CHRIST RECEIVED BY FAITH TO REIGN IN THE
HEART.

SALVATION BY GRACE DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH A RETURN TO FULL OBEDIENCE AS A CONDITION OF SALVATION.

There is a class of scripture texts which have been quoted by antinomians in support of the doctrine, that salvation is not conditionated upon personal holiness, or upon a return to full obedience. It has been found very convenient, by many who were lovers of sin, and never conscious of personal holiness, to adopt the idea of an imputed holiness, contenting themselves with an outward righteousness imputed to them, instead of submitting by faith to have the righteousness of God wrought in them. Unwilling to be personally pious, they betake themselves to an imputed piety. Because the scriptures declare, that men are not saved by works of the law, they infer, that a return to that state of love required by the law, is not even a condition of salvation. The texts above referred to, are such as these. "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."—Gal. ii. 16. This, and sundry other passages that hold the same language, are grossly misunderstood and misapplied by antinomians. They merely declare, that men are not justified and saved by their own works, which of course they cannot be, if they have committed even one sin. But they do not intimate, and there is no passage rightly understood that does intimate, that men are saved or justified upon conditions short of personal holiness, or a return to full obedience to the moral law. Again: James wrote his epistle to establish this point. Grace cannot save by dispensing with personal holiness, or a return to full obedience to the law. Grace must not only pardon, but secure personal holiness, or the soul is not fitted, either for the employments or enjoyments of heaven. It is naturally impossible for grace to save the soul, but upon condition of entire sanctification.” Charles Finney

“I have tried to understand the subject of justification as it is taught in the Bible, without going into laboured speculations or to theological technicalities. If I have succeeded in understanding it., the following is a succinct and a true account of the matter: The Godhead, in the exercise of his adorable love and compassion, sought the salvation of sinners through and by means of the mediatorial death and work of Christ. This death and work of Christ were resorted to, not to create, but, as a result of the merciful disposition of God, and as a means of securing the universe against a misapprehension of the character and design of God in forgiving and saving sinners. To Christ, as Mediator between the Godhead and man, the work of justifying and saving sinners is committed. He is made unto sinners "wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption." In consideration of Christ's having by his death for sinners secured the subjects of the Divine government against a misconception of his character and designs, God does, upon the further conditions of a repentance and faith, that imply a renunciation of their rebellion and a return to obedience to his laws, freely pardon past sin, and restore the penitent and believing sinner to favour, as if he had not sinned, while he remains penitent and believing, subject however to condemnation and eternal death, unless he holds the beginning of his confidence steadfast unto the end.” Charles Finney

[b]FINNEY ON IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS[/b]

“The doctrine of a literal imputation of Christ's obedience or righteousness is supported by those who hold it, by such passages as the following: Rom. iv. 5-8.—"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputed righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." But here justification is represented only as consisting in forgiveness of sin, or in pardon and acceptance. Again, 2 Cor. v. 19, 21. "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Here again the apostle is teaching only his much-loved doctrine of justification by faith, in the sense that upon condition or in consideration of the death and mediatorial interference and work of Christ, penitent believers in Christ are forgiven and rewarded as if they were righteous." Charles Finney

 2009/10/1 14:03





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy