The Controversy surrounding Charles Finney.

sermonindex Aug 16, 2004

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

KeithLaMothe Aug 16, 2004

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.

RobertW Aug 16, 2004

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.

InTheLight Aug 16, 2004

. . . 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

sermonindex Aug 16, 2004

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.

RobertW Aug 16, 2004

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.

KeithLaMothe Aug 16, 2004

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.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.

InTheLight Aug 17, 2004

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;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.Finney goes on to say that this Divine Agency is not the only expression of the term regeneration; 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.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. We must remember Finney was combating Calvanistic passivity that, taken to extremes, caused some to consider evangelistic outreach unnecessary. In Christ,Ron

KingJimmy Aug 17, 2004

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...

sermonindex Aug 17, 2004

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: karaministries.comNow 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 whole 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.

KeithLaMothe Aug 17, 2004

Brother Ron - What I said about Finneyites believing non-supernatural regeneration is second-hand information for me, I'll have to check with my source before I can respond. I may simply be incorrect, of course. Reading Finney's sermon on Regeneration, it doesn't seem entirely clear what he believed, but it's not as bad as I thought.From KingJimmy: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.Reformed Baptists, and Reformed folk in general, believe in the Perseverance of the Saints, which is obviously a way of saying "once saved, always saved." A better statement for them is "once elect, always elect." However, they (unlike those dispensational baptists and like ilk) don't believe you can ever know you're elect in this life. To put it simply, most of them don't believe you can know for certain that you'll get to heaven until you're there. I have differences with that position (believing as I do in Conditional Security), but I do not think it is antinomianism any more than I believe Jonathan Edwards was an antinomian.Also, I thought you might find it interesting (and ironic) to know what Finney and Arminius believed regarding the Perseverance of the Saints (though they do not seem to have used that term):From the Works of James Arminius, volume 1 ( http://www.ccel.org/a/arminius/works1/cache/works1.html3 )"VIII. May true believers and elect persons entirely lose faith for a season?VIII. May any man who has faith and retains it, arrive at such a moment, as, if he were then to die, he would be damned?ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION Since Election to salvation comprehends within its limits not only Faith, but likewise perseverance in Faith; and since St. Augustine says, "God has chosen to salvation those who he sees will afterwards believe by the aid of his preventing or preceding grace, and who will persevere by the aid of his subsequent or following grace; "believers and the elect are not correctly taken for the same persons. Omitting, therefore, all notice of the word "Election," I reply, believers are sometimes so circumstanced, as not to produce, for a season, any effect of true faith, not even the actual apprehension of grace and the promises of God, nor confidence or trust in God and Christ; yet this is the very thing which is necessary to obtain salvation. But the apostle says, concerning faith, in reference to its being a quality and a capability of believing, "some, having cast away a good conscience concerning faith, have made shipwreck.""From Finney's Lectures to Professing Christians in 1837, Lecture 5 (Justification by Faith) ( http://www.firesofrevival.com/ltpc/profes16.htm ), heading IV. In point 5:"Gospel justification differs from legal justification, in this respect: If the law justifies an individual, it holds no longer than he remains innocent. As soon as he transgresses once, his former justification is of no more avail. But when the gospel justifies a sinner, it is not so; but 'if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.' A new relation is now constituted, entirely peculiar. The sinner is now brought out from under the covenant of works, and placed under the covenant of grace. He no longer retains God's favor by the tenure of absolute and sinless obedience. If he sins, now, he is not thrust back again under the law, but receives the benefit of the new covenant. If he is justified by faith; and so made a child of God, he receives the treatment of a child, and is corrected, and chastised, and humbled, and brought back again. "The gifts and calling of God are without repentance." The meaning of that is not, that God calls and saves the sinner without his repenting, but that God never changes His mind when once he undertakes the salvation of a soul. I know this is thought by some to be very dangerous doctrine, to teach that believers are perpetually justified---because, say they, it will embolden men to sin."And in point 7:"Another effect of gospel justification is, to insure sanctification. It not only insures all the means of sanctification, but the actual accomplishment of the work, so that the individual who is truly converted, will surely persevere in obedience till he is fitted for heaven and actually saved."

RobertW Aug 17, 2004

For the record, Charles Stanley is a rank antinomian and to my knowledge so is Graham. This is a pretty strong statement, but I would certainly agree in terms of Charles Stanley's not believing that establishing the law is a requsite for salvation. To which I answer, a genuine Christian DOES walk in the Spirit and establish the law. Charles Stanley does teach that Christians are to live biblical, godly lives- he simply does not make it a requsite for salvation. To which I would answer, it is not requsite per se - it is a definite attribute of genuine salvation. If they go out from us it is because they were not of us. Reading Finney's revival memoirs it is obvious that he believed more in the working of the Holy Spirit than we do today almost handily. When was the last time we prayed day and night for 3 days without eating as did Daniel Nash in order to see God move? When was the last time we prayed until conviction fell upon a town to where people were afraid to speak? This is not the working of man- it is the working of a sovereign God. Something to consider about areas being burned over- there are always people who have resisted the working of God until they were hardened in their sins. No one is ever the same after they hear the Gospel. The more light that they reject the harder their heart becomes. It becomes proportionally difficult to reach such people later. This is not the preachers fault- for the people are not rejecting you or I or even Finney, but God Himself. Look at Moses, Pharoah was pretty 'burned over' after Moses message and the working of the Holy Spirit. Hardening is simply a two fold ordeal- a person makes God not welcome and then His Spirit departs. If God leaves it is because He was grieved- if He is grieved it is due to a perpetual striving and resisting by the unrepentant. this is summed up in this word, "TODAY if you will hear His voice- harden not your hearts."Moreover, Finney understood that the fallow ground had to be stirred up in order for God's word to take root. The condition of the ground (heart) is the prime subject in Jesus' teachings of the seed and soil. This is almost unheard of in our day. What is preparing the ground before our preaching today? It takes the law of God to break up the fallow ground by the Spirit of God. The law of God is perfect converting the soul- it has the effect of turning over the hardness and breaking up the heart. Finney would preach and preach and never give an altar call- why? They were not used yet for one; but secondly, he was using God's law to stir up the fallow ground and when the people fell as it were upon that rock (which was Christ) they were broken- and in that brokeness he offered them the Gospel. Today people just get the gospel spreader out and start spreading without any real preparation of the soil and then when people don't respond we think- "They must not have been the elect." If they make even a hint of a step towards God we say, "Brother you are saved." (at what cost?) NO, did we leave no stone unturned in presenting them the Gospel in the greatest capacity possible, that is the question.

KeithLaMothe Aug 17, 2004

RobertW wrote:

For the record, Charles Stanley is a rank antinomian and to my knowledge so is Graham. This is a pretty strong statement, but I would certainly agree in terms of Charles Stanley's not believing that establishing the law is a requsite for salvation.

It is strong, yes, but I believe it is fully justified (I speak now of Stanley, as I know less of Graham other than his apparent compatibility with some pretty weak modern evangelicals) :From:Charles Stanley (Atlanta, GA: In Touch Ministries, 1982), Spiritual Vs. Carnal: Study in 1 Corinthians, audiotape #8, PQ092.And so, sometimes out of ignorance or whatever it might be, they attempt to gratify and meet those needs the same way they did before they were saved, and therefore, you can't tell a carnal believer from a lost man. That is, you can't tell the cold from the carnal because the truth is, they're both acting the same way. Now, one of them is in Christ and one of them isn't. One of them is lost and the other one is in Christ. One of them knows about God and knows him in the experience of salvation; the other doesn't know him at all.I could dig up some other Stanley quotes if anyone likes, but I gave back the copy of Dan Corner's book that had been lent to me.Back to Finney, here's an article from a man far more knowledgeable than me on the issue (and this one, by the way, is not a Calvinist) :-------Charles G. Finney&Justification By Faithby Leon StumpAs we noted in our last issue, Charles G. Finney has been highly esteemed and accredited with far reaching influence in the history of American evangelicalism. Calvinists (named after the sixteenth century reformer John Calvin) have always detested Finney, who was one of their foremost opponents in the nineteenth century. They still see him as the single greatest contributor to the corruption of evangelism. His noted "new measures" in his revivals, calling convicted sinners forward to occupy the front row of "anxious seats" in his meetings, initiated a process of change in the way sinners were dealt with culminating in today’s "invitation system" as exemplified in Billy Graham crusades. Calvinists see this as a cheapening of the offer of salvation (which it may very well be), a watering down of the demands of the gospel and an equating of the new birth by the Spirit of God with the merely physical act of going forward in a meeting. Millions are led to believe they are Christians by their coming forward or raising their hand instead of being truly repentant and believing and coming to a genuine experience of salvation. Of course Calvinists, always distinguished for their vitriolism against opponents, also despise Finney because he railed against their primary doctrines of the total depravity of man (including the inability of man to repent and respond to the gospel without divine assistance), the absolute predestination of every individual in eternity past to either election to salvation or reprobation to damnation, a limited atonement (Christ died only for the elect), irresistible grace, and perseverance (a true believer can never ultimately be lost). For over 200 years Calvinism ruled the day in Protestantism; however, few evangelicals today believe any of the distinctive Calvinistic doctrines listed above with the exception of a corrupted form of the "perseverance of the saints"-"once saved, always saved" is the standard dogma of most Baptists. Many of the five distinctives of the Calvinist system, I would say, should be rejected outright as false teachings. This is a hard sell, however, because great numbers of highly respected writers and theologians of the past were Calvinists. The doctrine that Christ died only for the elect and the doctrine of reprobation, that before He made the world God willed and chose the vast majority of mankind to be damned forever, are particularly repugnant. Even though most of us today do not hold to Calvinism, we still cannot bring ourselves to say too much against it. John Calvin retains the respect of Calvinists and most non-Calvinists alike despite his errors. On the other hand, those who are found teaching false things today are usually condemned severely by those Calvinists and non-Calvinists who make it their ministry to correct error in the church. Despite all this unevenness today in dealing with false doctrine, we want to proceed in this particle article with the serious errors of Mr. Finney.As we have said, Finney is routinely referred to and quoted favorably by preachers and writers today despite the fact that most of them have never carefully examined his theology. If they had, the situation might be different. In our last issue we looked at Finney’s views on original sin-the doctrine that all of mankind was involved in Adam’s sin and that sin was passed down from him to all his descendants so that all are born in sin. We noted that despite his vehement rejection of this doctrine, Finney actually submitted a very good theory of just how sin was passed from Adam to his descendants through natural generation. Most of those who follow Finney today, known as "Moral Government" advocates, seem to be unaware of his explanation of how physical depravity results in moral depravity in the human race. Instead, they simply and forcefully reject any idea of the traditional doctrine of original sin and hold that man is born morally neutral. Finney himself wrote, "Man’s nature is as well fitted to love and obey God as to hate and disobey Him" (Crystal Christianity, formerly Lectures to Professing Christians; Whitaker House: Springdale, PA; 1985, pp.215,216). Surely, instead, the Bible presents man at the very least as naturally more prone to evil than good. This denial of original sin leads to some even more serious doctrinal problems, including the way Finney and his followers view the new birth, justification, sanctification, and the atonement. Briefly, they view the new birth not in the traditional sense of a radical change of nature but simply the choice of the will, turning from selfishness to "disinterested benevolence"-the choosing of good for its own sake, not for any personal benefit that may be derived from it. They view justification also as involving no change in man’s moral nature. When they use the term "justification by faith," they mean the choice of the will to obey God (which is how they define faith) and live righteously (which is how they view justification). Sanctification for them also is not reckoning upon the death of Christ as their own death to sin and yielding themselves to the Holy Spirit so much as it is choosing to obey the moral law of God at every moment, saying "no" to sin. It follows that if man has no sin nature to overcome, then all that is left or is necessary is for him to make the decision to quit sinning and live a perfectly holy life from the moment of his "conversion," which is a mere act of the will (influenced by the Holy Spirit in some minor way). There is no need for a radical new birth in the traditional sense or sanctification by the impartation of a nature or power to live a holy life. By the same token, there was no need for an atonement in the traditional sense of Christ bearing our sins and paying the penalty of death for them to free us from them and our old nature. The atonement was "a demonstration of ‘public justice,’" a mere gesture on God’s part to show how seriously He takes sin and that forgiveness is not cheap. The effects of the atonement are either entirely or primarily subjective. There was no exchange of our sin for His righteousness or the actual removal of sin by His death on the cross or in our lives by faith. According to Finneyism, the atonement saves us by example. In the death of Christ, we see how much God loves us, we see how much sin cost God, and we are humbled and moved to repent and obey God’s moral law. Salvation in Finneyism is nothing more nor less than obedience to the moral law of God, of which every man is naturally capable because he is a completely free moral agent. In the process of our discussions, we shall see if my assessment of Finney and Finneyism regarding the new birth, justification, and the atonement is correct. Finneyism, as I have characterized it briefly above, comports very well with the views of a fifth-century English monk named Pelagius. Pelagius’ only claim to fame was that he was the object of the rebukes and denunciation of Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, North Africa, who was probably the most influential theologian in church history. Finney’s followers today do not deny the charge of "Pelagianism" and offer no apologies for it. Most of them prefer to be called "semi-Pelagians" but in fact, the claim for the "semi-" is hard to justify. In days gone by the charge of "Pelagianism" was a serious one indeed, but in today’s theologically "dumbed-down" environment it is more likely to draw yawns than gasps. Most people have no idea what you are talking about, and if they do, they don’t care. John Calvin’s doctrine was merely a revival of the theology of Augustine hammered out in his disputes with Pelagius in the fifth century. Both Luther and Calvin were heavily dependent on Augustine and freely acknowledged as much. Now, surely Augustine is not the sole measure of orthodoxy and sound doctrine as Calvinists would still have us believe. One may take issue with the "Calvinism" of Augustine (to put it anachronistically) and not be a heretic. But it is surely just as doubtful that one can be a Pelagian without being in error. My main focus in our present article will be on Finney’s doctrine of justification, although this is inexorably intertwined, just as with original sin, with his views on the new birth and the atonement. Surely the doctrines of justification by faith, Christ’s atonement, and the new birth lie at the heart of the Christian system. This should be obvious to every believer, but as I have already noted, in our theologically emaciated "dumbed down" environment, I feel compelled sometimes to make a case for the obvious, and this in turn requires us to say something about the traditional doctrine of justification so that we have something to which to compare Finney’s view.In his Systematic Theology, Finney devotes the first seven chapters to "the Moral Government of God" or God’s government of mankind on the grounds of His moral law. In the sixth chapter he writes:The government of God accepts nothing as virtue but obedience to the law of God [italics in original]....Nothing can be virtue that is not just what the moral law demands. That is, nothing short of what it requires can be, in any proper sense, virtue. A common idea seems to be, that a kind of obedience is rendered to God by Christians which is true religion, and which, on Christ’s account, is accepted of God, which after all comes indefinitely short of full or entire obedience at any moment; that the gospel has somehow brought men, that is, Christians, into such relations, that God really accepts from them an imperfect obedience, something far below what his law requires; that Christians are accepted and justified while they render at best but a partial obedience, and while they sin more or less at every moment. Now this appears to me, to be as radical an error as can well be taught....Can God, in any sense, justify one who does not yield a present and full obedience to the moral law?...What good can result to God, or the sinner, or to the universe, by thus pardoning and justifying an unsanctified soul?...[F]ull present obedience [to the law] is a condition of justification....[T]his is what we hold....[C]an a man be justified while sin remains in him? Surely he cannot, either upon legal or gospel principles, unless the law be repealed....God cannot repeal the law. It is not founded in his arbitrary will. It is as unalterable and unrepealable as his own nature. God can never repeal or alter it....So then it is plain, that nothing is accepted as virtue under the government of God, but present full obedience to his law. (Finney’s Systematic Theology, Abridged and edited by J.H. Fairchild; Bethany House Publishers: Minneapolis,MN; 1976, pp.51,53,55,57-59)By this we can see at the outset what I have said before that Finney’s theological views came directly out of his confrontation with the lifestyles and prevailing views he encountered in his evangelism, and that his whole concern is primarily pragmatic (practical). In other words, he has seen people who call themselves Christians who act anything but the part; that is, they are not holy. This failure, he reasons, must have its roots in their wrong beliefs or theology-in this case the traditional view of justification by faith. He therefore rejects their beliefs and theology and proceeds to craft another without regard for orthodoxy, tradition, or anything else, including, I’m afraid, Scripture, at least at first. His theology springs from a reaction to prevailing views and lifestyles which he rejects as false; then, proceeding on the basis of reason alone at first, he charts out his theology, then finally consults the Scriptures to see if it might be possible to reconcile Scripture with it. This is the great weakness of his system and theology. It does not start with nor is it primarily concerned with nor is it based upon a careful exegesis (study and interpretation) of Scripture, but it starts with a reaction to his environment, then proceeds with reason and only lastly consults Scripture. This is a recipe for disaster. The thing about it is, this is exactly how too many have done their theology. One "chooses a side," usually the opposite of that of his opponents, before he consults the rule of faith, the Bible. Then he goes to the Bible to solidify his already chosen position. The fallacy is that even though your opponents’ position may truly be error, so your opposite position may be. Both positions tend to overstate their respective cases without careful consideration for that which may be true amongst that which is false. This problem is compounded when, as is usually the case, the contention between the two becomes heated. There is no doubt that Finney’s concerns about the status of Christianity in his day were legitimate. The quality of Christianity and Christians (if you could call them that) in his day as in our own was unacceptable and inadequate. The problem is not Finney’s recognition of the condition, but his assessment of the cause and his prescription for the cure. He blames, in effect, the standard Protestant doctrines of first, original sin, then justification by faith and the atonement, and rejects them. I am assuming, of course, that the standard Protestant doctrine of justification by faith is the Pauline, and therefore Biblical, doctrine of justification. By "virtue" Finney means "moral excellence and righteousness" (according to the "glossary...of the terms used by Charles Finney" supplied by the editor, pp.427, 434). In other words he is saying, "The government of God accepts nothing as righteousness but obedience to the law of God." But this brings him in direct conflict, not with simply the prevailing views of his own day but the Apostle Paul himself in Scripture:Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.... (Romans 3:20-22) What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. (Romans 4:3-5)What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works....Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them." But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’" (that is, to bring Christ down) "or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. (Romans 9:30-32;10:1-10)"We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." (Galatians 2:15,16) Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."...All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." (Galatians 3:6,10-12) What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ-the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. (Philippians 3:8,9)The terms "justification," "righteousness," and "righteous" are all translations of the same Greek word. It is true that "righteous" and "righteousness" sometimes refer to right living or right behavior, even in the writings of Paul. But the sense in which Paul and other New Testament writers use these terms most is as declaring or making someone right with God. Justification is the declaring of the sinner right with God, to be in right standing with God, who has put his faith in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for his sins. Justification includes the forgiveness of all past sins. The believer, having all his sins thus remitted, stands before God as though he had never sinned. Some use a play on the word "justified" to demonstrate its meaning-"justified" means "just-if-I’d never sinned." It is as though one had been perfectly righteous all his life, thus he is accepted by God as righteous, and stands in the acceptance and favor of God as though he had never done anything wrong. God does this on the grounds of the sacrificial death of His Son alone. Having borne our sins and having become answerable for them Himself, He died to discharge the penalty of death for our sins so that God can forgive our sins without violating His justice. "Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent-the Lord detests them both"(Proverbs 17:15). Acquitting the guilty sinner who deserves condemnation would be abominable to God were it not for the sacrifice of Christ who was executed as our substitute: God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:25,26)Justification is given by God on condition of faith, not works of any kind. Neither is faith meritorious or deserving of reward, but it is simply the means whereby that which God did in Christ in His atonement is made effective for the believing sinner, the means by which the free gift of righteousness provided in Christ’s death is received by the believer. Paul insists that righteousness does not come from the law, that it was given, not to justify, but instead to define sin and underscore and magnify human sinfulness. He insists that it is not possible that the law could bring righteousness. He insists that righteousness comes as a gift from God Himself, that it is imputed to the man, no matter how miserably he has failed to exhibit virtue according to the moral law, who has faith in Jesus and His atonement. God accepts as "virtuous" or righteous the man who puts his trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior. This is the classic Protestant doctrine of justification by faith. But, you may ask, doesn’t Finney believe this? Isn’t it possible that by "The government of God accepts nothing as virtue but obedience to the law of God" he means nothing more than what Paul and other New Testament writers go on to affirm that the man who is justified by faith has both the obligation to live a holy life and the provision from God to do so, so that in the end he fulfills and upholds the righteousness of the law by faith?- For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law....Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:28,31) For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:3,4)It would be well if this is all Finney meant by God "accepting nothing as virtue but obedience to the law of God," but I am afraid that the context of the chapters and the work in which his comments appear as well as the theology of those who follow him shows he does not. No, he means that God can justify us only if we live lives obedient to the law of God. What does he and his followers do, then, with the Scriptures that so plainly refute this? Why, they must redefine "righteousness," "law," "faith," and "works." One close admirer of his theology preached to us from Romans 10:10, "’For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation’ (KJV). The heart is the will. Faith is obedience. Righteousness is holy living. We are saved if we choose to obey God and live a holy life." In other words, according to him Paul was really saying, "With the will man obeys unto holiness and salvation." But of course this is far from what Paul meant, as the context makes clear. It is believing with the heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, not obedience to the moral law, that justifies (v. 9). Finney himself is the source for this definition of the "heart" being the will:It has been said that regeneration and a change of heart are identical. It is important to inquire into the scriptural use of the term heart. The term, like most others, is used in the Bible in various senses. The heart is often spoken of in the Bible, not only as possessing moral character, but as being the source of moral action, or as the fountain from which good and evil actions flow, and of course as constituting the fountain of holiness or sin, or, in other words still, as comprehending, strictly speaking, the whole of moral character...[quotes Matthew 15:18,19; and 12:34,35]. When the heart is thus represented as possessing moral character, and as the fountain of good and evil, it cannot mean,-...the substance of the soul or mind itself....it is not the sensibility or feeling faculty of the mind....The very idea of moral character implies, and suggests the idea of, a free action or intention. To deny this, were to deny a first truth. The term heart, when applied to the mind, is figurative, and means something in the mind that has some point of resemblance to the bodily organ of that name, and a consideration of the function of the bodily organ will suggest the true idea of the heart of the mind. The heart of the body propels the vital current, and sustains organic life....The mind as well as the body has a heart which, as we have seen, is represented as a fountain, or as an efficient propelling influence, out of which flows good or evil, according as the heart is good or evil....Our own consciousness, then, must inform us that the heart of the mind...can be nothing else than the supreme ultimate intention of the soul. (pp.221,222)Note how Finney, instead of appealing directly to Scripture, appeals to philosophical argument or reason: "To deny this were to deny a first truth." Finney’s identification of the heart as the will is strengthened and refined in the writings of Gordon Olson, one of his foremost pupils and founder of the modern Finney movement known as "Moral Government" theology: [Man, being a moral being] must have certain attributes or abilities, as follows: (1) Intelligence, or mental comprehension and imagination. This ability is commonly referred to in the Bible under the term "spirit"....(2) Emotion, or an ability to experience reactions to what the intelligence is occupied with. This is commonly referred to in the Bible as an ability of "soul"....(3) Free will, or the ability of self-decision or self-causation, the seat or source of action. This ability is commonly referred to in the Bible under the term "heart"....This capacity to live and do things must be the very essence of the mystery of life, or the very center of personality....Perhaps the most profound term used in describing personality is the term "heart."...a very center of our personality which is the source and essence of life, just as the physical heart is the center and source of physical life....[F]ree will [is] the ability of self-decision or self-causation, the seat or source of action, commonly referred to in the Bible under the term "heart." Free will is the energy or motive source which directs life. Free will is the very center of our personality which is the source and essence of life, just as the physical heart is the center and source of physical life. ("The Moral Government of God," Gordon Olson; Men for Missions: Minneapolis, MN; 1966, pp.21,22,44)It should be easy to see that both Finney’s and Olson’s conclusion that the heart is the will is arrived at more by reason, their psychology or anthropology, and their own presuppositions about what is central to man and salvation than a careful exegesis of Scripture. The heart is the will, they maintain, the will makes the choice to love God and obey Him, and this constitutes salvation and religion. Romans 10:10 according to Finney means, "With the will man makes it his ultimate intention to seek the highest good of God and the universe and obey his moral law and thus obtains salvation." An utter and complete distortion of Paul’s meaning. There is not a Jew or Papist on earth who would not applaud this definition of salvation. Of faith, Finney says,The term faith, like most other words, has diverse significations, and is manifestly used in the Bible sometimes to designate a state of the intellect, in which case it means an undoubting persuasion, a firm conviction, an unhesitating intellectual assent. This, however, is not its evangelical sense. Evangelical faith cannot be a phenomenon of the intellect, for the plain reason that, when used in an evangelical sense, it is always regarded as a virtue. But virtue cannot be predicated of intellectual states, because these are involuntary, or passive states of mind....[Quotes James 2:17-26, "faith without works is dead.] The distinction is here clearly marked, as it is elsewhere in the Bible, between intellectual and saving faith. One produces good works or a holy life; the other is unproductive. This shows that one is a phenomenon of the intellect merely, and does not of course control the conduct. The other must be phenomenon of the will, because it manifests itself in the outward life....Indeed the Bible, in a great variety of instances and ways, represents faith in God and in Christ as a cardinal form of virtue....Since the Bible uniformly represents saving or evangelical faith as a virtue, we know that it must be a phenomenon of the will....Present evangelical faith implies a state of present sinlessness. Observe, faith is the yielding and committal of the whole will, and of the whole being to Christ. This, and nothing short of this, is evangelical faith. But this comprehends and implies the whole of present, true obedience to Christ. This is the reason why faith is spoken of as the condition, and as it were, the only condition, of salvation. It really implies all virtue. Faith may be contemplated either as a distinct form of virtue, and as an attribute of love, or as comprehensive of all virtue....When contemplated in the wider sense of universal conformity of will to the will of God, it is then synonymous with entire present sanctification.... (pp.309,310,313) Wow! Faith equals obedience which equals all virtue which equals entire sanctification. With mathematics like this, we might just as easily prove that something is nothing. In the first place, one might indeed argue that true faith, which James calls a living faith as opposed to a dead one, by definition in the Greek and Hebrew words as well as by its use in the Bible leads one to act in accordance with what one is persuaded and convinced is true. But this does not mean that faith is or equals obedience, only that they are related. Nor does it really prove anything about whether faith is intellectual or of the will. And faith is not a virtue, something meritorious that deserves reward, nor does it contain or imply all virtue as Finney goes on. Faith is faith, not everything else. It is the condition of justification not because it is meritorious or includes and implies entire obedience to the moral law but because, as Paul uses the term in connection with justification, it is the condition of acceptance of a free gift that is offered to us on the grounds of Christ’s atonement. Faith is simply the means by which we receive what God offers as a gift. Finney writes in another place,What is faith? It is that confidence in God which leads us to love and obey him. We are therefore justified by faith because [italics in original] we are sanctified by faith. (True and False Repentance, "Justification by Faith;" Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids,MI; 1966, p.67)So, Finney thinks he does not contradict what Paul said about being justified by faith apart from the law because faith means entire obedience, and we are justified only if we are sanctified. Again, this would be perfectly acceptable to both Judaism and Roman Catholicism, and is about as far wide of what Paul taught about justification as you can get. Finney also directly addresses the verses we cited from Paul on justification by faith, not law, and offers a reconciliation between his own views and Paul’s by a strict limitation on what Paul meant by "law:" Some suppose that justification by faith is without regard to good works or holiness. They have understood this from what Paul said when he insisted so vehemently on justification by faith. But it must be remembered that Paul was combating the error of the Jews, who expected to be justified by obeying the law. In opposition to this error, Paul insists that justification is by faith, without works of law. He does not mean that good works are unnecessary to justification. Works of law are not good works because they spring from legal considerations, hope, and fear and not from faith that works by love....Paul was speaking of works performed from legal motives....All that he denies is that works of law grounded on legal motives have anything to do with the matter of justification.... Gospel justification, or justification by faith, consists in pardon and acceptance by God. When we say that men are justified by faith and holiness, we do not mean that they are accepted on the ground of law. But they are treated as if they were righteous on account of their faith and works of faith....Not that faith is the foundation of justification, because the foundation is in Christ. But this is the manner in which sinners are pardoned, accepted, and justified. If they repent, believe, and become holy, their past sins will be forgiven for Jesus’ sake....When the apostle says, "By works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Galatians 2:16), he uses justification in a strictly legal sense. But when he speaks of justification by faith, he speaks not of legal justification but of a person being treated as if he were righteous. (Crystal Christianity, op.cit., pp.221-223)Let’s walk through what Finney just said one step at a time. First, Paul was writing in opposition to Judaizers in his epistle to the Galatians, but not in his epistle to the Romans. In Romans, Paul coolly lays out the gospel he commonly preached; there was no direct, specific conflict with Judaism that occasioned his writing as was the case with the Galatians. He wrote the Roman church in lieu of a personal visit which he had planned many times, had been unable to fulfill, but which he hoped to fulfill shortly (1:9-13; 15:20-29). And in Romans Paul speaks of justification by faith without the law in exactly the same way as he does in Galatians. It is not just in opposition to error that Paul preached justification by faith. Secondly, Paul certainly does mean that good works are unnecessary to justification: To the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. (Romans 4:5) The Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it. (Romans 9:30) The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." (Galatians 3:12). Nothing could be plainer. The clincher is Titus 3:5: He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. (Titus 3:5). He doesn’t say "works of the law" but "works of righteousness" ("righteous things we had done") in general, so these are synonymous. He does indeed mean good works by "works of law" when he says we are not justified by them. They are therefore unnecessary to justification. Third, Finney has no warrant whatsoever for his claim that "Paul was speaking of works performed from legal motives....All that he denies is that works of law grounded on legal motives have anything to do with the matter of justification." This is out of thin air; Paul makes no such distinction about motives. I must add that I detest this kind of screwing around with the Word of God when it doesn’t fit your preconceived ideas. Finney does this often, and he has taught those who follow him to do this well also. Regardless of one’s motives, works do not justify-that is what Paul plainly said and plainly meant. Fourth, Finney says, "Men are justified by faith and holiness." Absolutely not. "To the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Romans 4:5). What holiness do the wicked possess? "They are treated as if they were righteous on account of their faith and works of faith." Absolutely not. "He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy" (Titus 3:5). "If they repent, believe, and become holy, their past sins will be forgiven for Jesus’ sake." Nonsense, as the Scriptures we have already cited plainly show. Abraham was justified or declared righteous not after or because he had done works of faith and holiness but when and because he believed what God told him, that he would have a son in his old age and his subsequent descendants would eventually be as innumerable as the stars: Then the word of the Lord came to him: "This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir." He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars-if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be." Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness. (Genesis 15:4-6)No works of faith or holiness here, yet he was justified. He was justified because he believed in the Lord, i.e., what He had just told him. What then of James’ teaching that Abraham was counted righteous because of his works, that is, offering Isaac as a sacrifice in obedience to God’s command? James doesn’t say that Abraham was justified only after he had obeyed, but that the declaring of Abraham righteous when he believed God was fulfilled. "His faith was made complete by what he did" (James 2:22). His faith was tested by God’s command and proved (the Greek word means both) to be genuine saving or justifying faith (Hebrews 11:17). It is only in this sense that Abraham was justified by what he did. And last, Finney has no warrant for asserting that Paul "uses justification in a strictly legal sense" in Galatians 2:16. He raises this distinction to attempt to sidestep the condemnation of his doctrine from what Paul said. Finney, it is quite obvious in this whole passage, flatly denies justification by faith. Is this not serious? I can’t think of anything more serious, seeing the absolutely crucial and central place that justification by faith holds in the gospel and Christianity. Its denial is tantamount to the destruction of the gospel. That is why Paul is so vehement in Galatians. Finney and those who follow him may be guilty of the verdict and anathema Paul issues there: I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (Galatians 1:6-9)I of course can do no better, but let me add that you who preach this from Finney and believe it-your eternal salvation may be in jeopardy. It is possible, as John Wesley charitably suggested concerning William Law whom he admired and was a great influence upon him in his early years, that a person may have true faith in Jesus Christ and therefore be justified by faith while denying the doctrine of justification by faith as Law did. Later after Wesley had his new birth and justification experience on hearing Luther’s introduction to his commentary on Romans being read in a house meeting, he confronted Law as to why he hadn’t led him to Christ years before. Wesley concluded that Law himself needed to be led to Christ. At the very least you who follow Finney’s theology are in deep trouble. As I have said, I came to find out gradually over a period of time exactly what Finney taught, several years in fact after I became associated with some "Moral Government" people. We had some relatively minor disagreements and I even had some of them preach on occasion in our church. I identified with them because they were strong on repentance and preaching against sin. But the time came when I read these and other passages in Finney’s Systematic Theology, and I began to see our relationship was in deep trouble. The breach grew and finally came to a head. I had consented to let one of this group preach for us again. He came to the church on Saturday before he was to speak on Sunday. We stayed up until the wee hours of the morning discussing Finney’s views. Finally I read these very passages on justification from Finney’s Systematic Theology to him. He would not disavow them but rather defended them. I told him these (and other statements from Finney) were indefensible. To my great regret, since I had already agreed to have this young man preach for us, I told him I must go back on my invitation and forbid him to preach for us that morning (it was then 3 a.m.). There is no way in this world I could let somebody preach in my pulpit who did not firmly believe in justification by faith. My obligation to safeguard the truth of God and the people of God far outweighed my promise to let him preach, though it grieved me to go back on my word. I announced to the people the next morning that this man who had been scheduled to speak would not be speaking after all. He had left earlier in the morning before service. Finney’s great mistake is to dismantle these great cornerstone doctrines of the faith because he wrongly sees in them the cause of the problem-the masses of people who profess to be, but do not live as, Christians. To Finney’s credit, in distinction to most people today, he rightly sees the place that works and holiness have in salvation. Most people today deny there is any place at all for these in salvation, that they have to do only with rewards. But this is certainly not the case as is evident from so many Scriptures, including the writings of Paul himself. But works and holiness have nothing to do with justification. Some try to make justification all of salvation, but it is not. It is pardon and acceptance with God, the forgiveness of sin, and the declaring of a man right with God through faith in Jesus, and the cleansing of his heart from sin, but this is not all there is to salvation. Salvation includes the new birth, sanctification, and glorification or final entrance into the kingdom of God. These certainly do require obedience and perseverance. Both classic Calvinists and Arminians have always insisted it to be so. But justification does not require obedience and perseverance. Ironically, Finney makes the same mistake his opponents do but in different way-they both make justification the whole of salvation instead of just a part, the initial part. His opponents made justification the whole of salvation by excluding sanctification; Finney makes justification the whole of salvation by including sanctification in justification. The fault is not with the doctrine of justification by faith, but with a lack of understanding of the connection between justification and sanctification. Justification certainly is the grounds of sanctification. Finney denies this and says just the opposite, that sanctification is the grounds of justification. The truth is we are to live holy lives because we have been justified, not that we are justified because we live holy lives. And holiness is not optional. "Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord," (Hebrews 12:14). If Finney had simply held to justification by faith and insisted that all those who are or claim to be justified by faith also be sanctified by faith like the Apostle Paul and John Wesley did, he would have been all right. Instead, he launches out into areas that are way over his head and drowns (along with many others with him, I’m afraid). He and all those who follow him that I have ever known are far too inadequate in knowledge of theology, Christian history, and Bible languages to attempt to revamp the whole of Christian knowledge and doctrine as Finney attempted to do. I doubt if he even read Wesley. And those who follow Finney for the most part have very little if any theological training. Finney was their introduction to any serious attempt at theology. He got there first, they were impressed, and swallowed him whole. It is really sad. Finney does not deserve in the least the grandiose titles and acclaim as a theologian that he has received from those who are enamored with him. The things I have cited from his writings are not the work of either a brilliant man or a brilliant theologian. They are the fumbling and confused albeit puffed up ramblings of a mixed up man. Now, having said all that, let me be fair with Finney and say that in some other places of his works, he writes very admirably and evangelically of our own insufficiency and of Christ’s complete sufficiency and our faith in Him for our sanctification. But what is this when you are as confused as he is on justification? Besides, as I have said, when a teaching is a mixture of truth and error, inevitably it is the error, not the truth, that gets passed on and becomes dominant in subsequent generations of those who follow it. It is Finney’s "moral government" Pelagianism that characterizes his followers today, which is why they call themselves "Moral Government." Much more on the subject of justification and what Finney taught on it could be said but space will not permit us. We must remain clear and unmoved on justification by faith; it is such a precious, fundamental, and irreplaceable truth of God. Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. (Romans 5:1,2)I hope you have put your whole trust with all your heart in Jesus Christ who died and rose again for you and are experiencing peace with God and that you are rejoicing in this state of favor with God in the hope of entering His glory. If not I hope you will repent of your sins and call on and receive Jesus as Saviour and Lord before it is too late.God bless you all.Leon Stump, Pastor of Victory Christian Center ------

RobertW Aug 17, 2004

They are the fumbling and confused albeit puffed up ramblings of a mixed up man. And those who follow Finney for the most part have very little if any theological training. Finney does not deserve in the least the grandiose titles and acclaim as a theologian that he has received from those who are enamored with him. The things I have cited from his writings are not the work of either a brilliant man or a brilliant theologian.Having cited only Paul's writings and ignoring the full counsel of God I will but remind the writer of the tractate against Finney that John was a contemporary of Paul and ministered with him at Ephesus. He was the last writer of the Holy Scriptures to die and wrote the closing remarks that tied up any loose ends or misconceptions of either Paul or James. He also knew Jesus like none other in this earth. In his words:Whoever says, "I know him," but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him. This is the way we may know that we are in union with him:whoever claims to abide in him ought to live as he lived." (I John 2) "Whoever" includes those who claim they have been justified. What is the part and portion of ALL liars in keeping with Johannan hermeneutic? The Greek word psuede- from which we get psuedo is found in similar form again in Revelation 21:7- to which all liars (psuede) will have their part in the lake of fire.Is this man Leon Stump suggesting to us through his missive against Finney that a person can be justified and hell bound (John uses the word 'liar') simultaneously? Or is he placing Finney's emphasis on the need to do (what John said we either do or are liars) chronologically in FRONT of a person's born again experience in order to level anathema on his head? Do I hear this man saying that if a person believes they must keep His commandments to be saved then they are actualy lost? At the very least you who follow Finney’s theology are in deep trouble. We can debate the chronology and the means of our keeping His word, but are we to believe that we can NOT keep the commandments and still consider ourselves justified?

ZekeO Aug 17, 2004

The things I have cited from his writings are not the work of either a brilliant man or a brilliant theologian.I think the problem is that he stepped out of his call, alla William Branham. He was a great evangelist, but not I believe a great theologian, nor was he a teacher. I am told that when William Branham came to my city, he would use his gifting and then Ern Baxter would do the teaching. The trouble came for Branham when he started doing his own teaching and explaining theology where I believe God never gave him the ability to do so. God never intended that any man interpret theology to his own beliefs, or it to be done in a vacumn. His ideal is team ministry, even Paul went to the Jerusalem church to lay his revelation down. Gal 2:1-10 Very much what happens in these forums. I am not a great theologian, nor do I understand all the different theological thoughts, but somewhere down the middle is the truth.Zeke