Finney, a heretic?

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

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

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

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

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

Whenever Calvinists try to discredit Finney they falsely accuse him.

You are either:

1. A Liar
2. Ignorant

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

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

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

Liars make me sick.

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

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

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

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

[b]FINNEY ON FAITH[/b]

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

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

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

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

[b]FINNEY ON THE ATONEMENT[/b]

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

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

[b]FINNEY ON JUSTIFICATION [/b]

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

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

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

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

[b]FINNEY ON IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS[/b]

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

Yes Finney didn't believe in OSAS but that doesn't make him a heretic. Just because He said a Christian is condemned if he sins (murders or commits adultery for example) and therefore needs to repent does not make him a heretic. Was David condemned when He committed adultery and murder? Yes. Did David need to repent? Yes. The same goes for any Christian. Peter denied the Lord and was in danger of being denied by the Lord. Peter repented. If a Christian sins, they must repent or perish Luke 13:3

Finney did teach Perseverence of the Saints. He said that if a believer sins and falls under condemnation, God will bring him to repentance. He said all those who have been saved will persevere unto the end. If they sin and come under condemnation, they will repent.

I personally disagree with his view of Peresverence of the Saints, but I do agree with his view of conditional security. We are saved from God's wrath as long as we are not doing anything listed in 1 Cor 6:9-10 for example.

Of course that would render Paul's words of there being no more condemnation in Romans 8 as nothing more than a lie.

Paul said in Romand 8:1 that those who walk after the Spirit, instead of after the flesh, are not condemned (KJV). Paul never said that we wouldn't be condemned if we walked after the flesh.

In fact, Paul told Christians that if they lived after the flesh they would die - Romans 8:13

Notice how Romans 8:13 is after Romans 8:1

Finney did not teach that you needed to obey the law (the Torah) to be saved. That is what the Judiazers did and it was condemned in Galatians and refuted by Paul in Romans.

Finney taught that to be saved, a person must repent and believe. To repent is to change your mind about sinning and to believe is to trust in Christ. Even some Calvinists believe in repentance. Not all Calvinists are antinomians.

I don't think I misrepresented him at all

You said that Finney said the cross was divine child abuse. That is a blatant lie. I have read everything Finney has written on the atonement (to my knowledge) and he never said anything bad about the atonement at all! He taught vicarious substitution. He said that the blood atonement of Christ was a governmental substitution for the eternal punishment of sinners.

Again, prove that you are not a liar. Give us this quote from Finney where he spoke so negatively and blasphemous about the cross, calling it child abuse? That is a modern Emergent quote. Finney said no such thing.

Do you really think that Finney is a heretic because he said that if a believer commits adultery or murder (violates the law of God) that they are condemned until they repent?

Do you think that if a believer commits adultery and murder, they are still going to Heaven? If so, what about 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and 1 John 3:15?

Or do you think that a true believer would not commit adultery and murder? If so, what about King David??

Suppose a believer simply tells an intentional lie. The law says thou shalt not bear false witness. According to Revelation 21:8 all liars will go to hell. Doesn't that mean "all non-Christian liars" will, but Christian liars will go to Heaven?

If a believer does sin or breaks the law of God (commits adultery or murder) don't they need to repent according to Luke 13:3? Or are they forgiven before they repent? If you are forgiven before you repent, was Jesus wrong??

I said that because Finney viewed Christ's [u]death and obedience[/u] as only sufficient for Himself

Again you prove yourself either a liar or just ignorant. Finney didn't say that the death of Christ was only sufficient for Himself! Finney taught that Christ was obligated to obey the law for Himself, but Christ was not obligated to suffer and die since He never violated the law. Therefore His suffering and death were for us! It was a "vicarious" "substitution" according to Finney's own words.

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

Now you have falsely accused Finney of saying:

1. The cross was child abuse
2. The death of Christ was only sufficient for himself

You cannot prove either of these false accusations because Finney said no such thing. You are a slanderer, either intentionally or unintentionally. You should do your homework before you falsely accuse a man of God that was used mightily in Revival.

You should just stop your false accusations before you continue putting yourself in a deeper hole and continue to make yourself look ignorant or as a liar.

The bottom line is that we(you and I) will never agree on Finney as we start from two very different views of man. Yours is a more Pelagian view(man is morally able and unstained by the fall), and mine is more Pauline(there are none that do good).

That is the main point of all of this. If man is not able, then He needs more than an example.

My view is Pauline, that man is able (1 Cor 10:13) yet with our ability we have chosen to sin (Romans 3:12). Men could obey God but sinners do not obey God.

If men couldn't obey God, sin is not their fault.
If sin is not their fault, they don't deserve punishment for their sin.
If men don't deserve punishment for their sin, they don't need an atonement.
Therefore if men couldn't obey God, they need no atonement

If men could obey God but refuse to do so, sin is their own fault.
If sin is their own fault, they deserve punishment.
If they deserve punishment, they need an atonement.
Therefore if men could obey God but refuse to do so, they need the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Jesus is both our example and our Savior. As our example, He showed us what we are capable of. He said, "come follow me" which implies that we have the ability to imitate his example. As our Savior, He died for our sins so that we don't have to go to hell for our sins. Through His atonement we can have pardon. His atonement saves us from the practice of sin by bringing us to repentance and His atonement saves us from the penalty of sin by providing a subsitute for it.

We need both the example of Christ and the atonement of Christ. The Bible teaches both.