Why do calvinists cringe at that name? I've brought up Finney in conversations and it totaly negated my testamony to certain peoples. There is alot of John Piper loyalists up here and just wondering if maybe he said something to discredit Finney. Any thoughts?
Finney is a Calvinist's worst nightmare-- his entire theological systematic viewpoint was completely contrary and in utter defiance of the Calvinistic, 5-point theology of the day. He didn't really even believe in Original Sin from what I gather, but nor did Paris Reidhead-- but his theological writings are pretty good nonetheless. Take them with a grain of salt and a Bible close by.
Edit: On second look I didn't even explain in summary even what the differentiations stemmed from. To sum up as best as I can (and anyone else can further elaborate,) Finney believed in the ultimate freedom and will of Man. Calvinists believe in the ultimate Sovereignty of God. The thing is, both believe that they contain both of those precepts, but in reality, Finney held to one extreme, and the other guys held to the other. Where and who went the middle ground combining the two is up for you to decide. It's a complicated mess of theological debates that have run on for centuries-- something that is unedifying and unScriptural in it's extremities, but when you combine the two are fully Scriptural. For both are in play throughout the Bible.
Jordan
I understand this but why such defiance and shut down. He was a great american revivalist don't you think we should hear what he has to say? Did not 80% of his converts stay devout in Christ? I own his systematic theology and think it is wonderful! Ooops should'nt of said that now nobody is going to take me seriously?!?!?! His lectures on Revival is really good also. Ravenhill and Kieth Green seemed to enjoy his writings as well. Why not consider his views when his walk surely showed he was in Christ?
The "defiance and shut down" that comes from most Calvinists when they hear the name Finney is due to these long-standing feuds of doctrinal differentiations as I said. Most (at least serious, 5-point) Calvinists wouldn't even say you could be saved if you don't hold to their strict theological viewpoint. However the same "defiance and shut down" could be paralleled to if you brought up John Calvin in a group of Nazarenes or what-have-you-- most don't have a pretty image of him as Calvinists don't have of Finney, in my experience at least.
Jordan
I know many calvinists and have asked them why they do not like Finney, and what most of them say is that he did not believe in the Atonement. If you read his systematic theology it can be misunderstood to mean that, and although I disagree with his view, from what I understand, I would certainly not say that it is heresy, and if it is, it certainly isn't a damnable heresy.
Also most calvinists definately don't say that unless you are a 5-pointer you're not saved. I have one really good friend who is obsessed with Piper and we disagree and that is fine with him.
I do find it interesting that reformed people respect Wesley but not Finney... my theory is that because Wesley had Whitefield to substantiate himself he is accepted whereas Finney had no Calvinist friends...
I know many calvinists and have asked them why they do not like Finney, and what most of them say is that he did not believe in the Atonement. If you read his systematic theology it can be misunderstood to mean that, and although I disagree with his view, from what I understand, I would certainly not say that it is heresy, and if it is, it certainly isn't a damnable heresy.
I second that, brother. The lesser issue involved here is free will and predestination, as you have pointed out with Wesley. The real problem with Finney is his doctrine of the atonement, which really isn't an atonement at all, but rather a safety mechanism for God to forgive man. I can understand on this point why the Calvinists recline when they hear the name Finney. John Wesley on the other hand, though an Arminian, still held the traditional atonement view, and as far as I am concerned, classical Arminianism and classical Calvinism can go together quite nicely. :-)
I think one of the problems with Finney as well was that he was very much a "moralist" He would use his own convictions as the standard by which others should live. He was quite extreme with things such as how much sugar to use without it being sin, and if one should drink tea.
The reason many Reformed folks do not care for Finney and his theology is that it was contrary to what Historical Christian teaching had taught.
Also the idea that one could be saved one minute, and then the next be lost was not highly regarded either.
I fear that the impact this man has had upon our times is that too many have gotten into a moral gospel which leads to much defeat, and despair rather than understanding the glorious grace of God in saving sinners. Because Finney's atonement view was of the moral government view, he did not see man as utterly and thouroughly tainted and dead in sin, thus you come up with a jesus that cannot really save to the uttermost without man's moral compliance. Thus the work of the cross is not for the propitiation of God's wrath, but rather a picture of how much God hates sin.
I don't know much about Finney, I used to want to read alot of his books, but I will stick with the Puritan authors for now.
Yeah I see what you are saying about his views becoming somewhat dependent on the morality of man rather than the grace of God, as is the tendency with any arminian, but from what I have read of him he exalts the grace of God in the morality of man and gives God all of the glory for the morality. Again with his views on Atonement he does hold to the moral government view, but it is weird because a lot of what he says is pretty ambiguous and i am still trying to figure it out.
But as roaringlamb said you are always safe sticking with Puritans :-)
I'm going to do more research into the Puritans before I state what I "firmly believe" about them. I think that like the Founding Fathers-- there are many, many myths pertaining to them and their "Christian prudence" or what-have-you. But for now I do not know enough of them.
Jordan
Yeah right now I am reading a book called The Genius of Puritanism and it describes what the preaching was like, the church goers were like as well as outlining many of the greatest men of the time period.
ALthough I do not agree with the Puritans reformed theology, it is so easy to see that they have such a grasp of God that is just breathed into their writings. I think it was Ravenhill who said (maybe quoting someone) "The Puritan preachers lived in eternity 6 days a week and on the 7th they stepped down and told the congregation what God had taught them."
I don't know much about Finney, I used to want to read alot of his books, but I will stick with the Puritan authors for now.
Read them!! This is what I get from most who like to comment on Finney. They've only heard things about him they actually have'nt read it for themselves. He really is an amazing author and will make you think about what you believe and may change how you walk the christian life. He puts up a fairly good argument on any topic thanks to his career choice before becoming a minister. His call to holiness is why people paint such a picture of this man. He lived what he wrote and spoke and have met very few today I could say the same about. But there are a few.
In the love of Christ,
Craig
Finney was the inventor of the "altar call", where the preacher calls sinners to come to the front and give their lives to Jesus. Calvinists believe that salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit upon the sinners' mind and spirit. Hyper-calvinists are fairly unevangelistic since they believe that man cannot have any effect in a person's salvation. Calvinists also believe that Finney was a Pelagianist. In other words, man could become perfect before God in his own abilities. To read what one prominent Calvinist has to say about Finney, go here:
I love Finney, but I balance Finney with other writers and preachers.
I have been reading through Chuck's compiled lectures from the Oberlin Evangelist, 'The Promise of The Spirit.' at a rate of about 3 lectures a month for over half a year. This has been a source of great struggle and conviction, much in the same way that something like Why Revival Tarries or John Owen's The Mortification of Sin are.
I once said that Finney sets the bar higher, and the person I was speaking with correctly pointed out that the bar was always set that high -Jesus is the standard. What I think Finney is good for is showing us how low we see the standard of God as being, when we read Finney's writings we sometimes come away ashamed, or feel that he is too radical... well the Gospel demands radical obedience!
Finney has some doctrines that I disagree with, such as his strong teachings on 'christian perfection.' I want to be perfect, and I daily cry out to God for more mercy and more grace, according to Paul Washer this is one of the signs that I'm saved -according to Finney (or even John Owen) I'm a heathen who hasn't actually accepted Jesus as my savior.
Finney is great for challenging a person to live a more holy life. One of the things I like about reading Finney are those moments where the bar seems to get higher... and you've got to sit and repent that you hadn't seen that certain thing as sin before. Of course all of the theology and ethic is in the bible, but Finney is great for laying down the Praxis! Of course, the praxis is different for every person, but I'm amazed at Charles Finney's desire to live a holy life.
If there's anything to take away from Finney is the desire to be holy, to serve others and to share the Good News of Jesus Christ.
TrueWitness wrote:
To read what one prominent Calvinist has to say about Finney, go here:
I find it kind of strange that a 'prominent Calvinist' runs a site called 'spurgeon.org' considering Charles Spurgeon was a Baptist and spent almost his entire career preaching against calvinists.
TrueWitness said
"Finney was the inventor of the "altar call", where the preacher calls sinners to come to the front and give their lives to Jesus."
Was it so? Correct me if I am wrong. It is only on the revivals that he held that people were slain by the conviction of the Holy Spirit and fell on the ground before he even finishes his preaching.
Hear it from his own account. This is taken from the Article “Memories of Charles Finney”
"I had not spoken to them in this strain of direct application, I should think, more than a quarter of an hour, when all at once an awful solemnity seemed to settle down upon them; the congregation began to fall from their seats in every direction, and cried for mercy. If I had had a sword in each hand, I could not have cut them off their seats as fast as they fell. Indeed nearly the whole congregation were either on their knees or prostrate, I should think, in less than two minutes from this first shock that fell upon them. Every one prayed for himself, who was able to speak at all."
This kind of things characterized most of his meetings. I don't think he "alter called" or invented it. To the contrary Alter calls are invented when this kind of power that characterized Finney’s meetings departed from the church.
"If there's anything to take away from Finney is the desire to be holy, to serve others and to share the Good News of Jesus Christ"
Well said "iansmith"!
Your sis. Mek.
I find it kind of strange that a 'prominent Calvinist' runs a site called 'spurgeon.org' considering Charles Spurgeon was a Baptist and spent almost his entire career preaching against calvinists.
roaringlamb wrote:
I hope this does not "ruin" Spurgeon for you, or anyone else, but Spurgeon was against Hyper-Calvinism(I am as well), but was all for Calvinism. Here is his defense of it[url=http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm]Defense Of Calvinism-Spurgeon[/url]
Well sometimes I'd really like to know the context that these sermons are preached in, I've read a lot by Spurgeon where he takes potshots at calvanists, not to mention he was a pillar of the Baptist community. My belief in this is that he was probably trying to mend some bridges, which is good.
But if he gave 99 sermons where he espoused a belief contrary to the majority of calvanist doctrinal teachings and 1 sermon in support of calvanism, I wouldn't call him a calvanist.
Here is a sermon preached on "Particular Redemption" or Limited Atonement.[url=http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0181.htm]Particular Redemption
Another on man's inability, or total depravity[url=http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/Human%20Inability.htm]Human Inability
Predestination and effectual calling, or irresistable grace[url=http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0241.htm]Predestination And Calling
Unconditional Election[url=http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0131.htm]
Salvation Is Of The LORD
This link will take you to Spurgeon's thoughts on all five points of Calvinism[url=http://www.spurgeongems.org/grace.htm]
Spurgeon Gems
Just so you know it was more than just one sermon. I think many people like to quote Spurgeon, and herald him as the "Prince of Preachers" without understanding the doctrines he held.
Every blessing to you today :-)
Ian,
Spurgeon was a Calvinist.
Here is a list of sermons he preached on Romans:
http://www.spurgeon.org/index/r_ro.htm
Here is a sermon on Election
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0041.htm
Here is a sermon entitled "Glorious Predestination"
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1043.htm
roaringlamb, you were thinking the same thing I was! :-)
This discussion is locked.
