Finney Criticism

I was in wikipedia doing some research on Finney,when I saw that there was a debate on another page. I went to it and was shocked at what I read, I know many people dont agree with much of Finneys theology, but to go this far? To question his salvation and say he did not preach or beleive the gospel... Is this a commonly held beleif? I was wondering what the opinions are here on SI.

[b]Quote[/b]"Moreover, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, rather than a place to air particular points of view. Like you, I am not a fan of Finney's theology. He did not preach the gospel and did not believe the gospel. I honestly think he aint in heaven. But even though this is my own personal belief (and probably yours)."

I love Finney, he is one of the greatest preachers of all time!

I had a similar reaction as yours James when I read what was reported about him on this webpage:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm

I was just shocked. First time I had ever heard criticism of Finney. If these things said about him are true, did he not touch on these subjects in his preaching?

finney was definitely a prophet preacher. he was very gifted in helping many see their evil motives, the true intent of the heart. we need more men like finney who knows how to use the sword of the Word with the power of His Spirit to cut men's heart and expose their wickedness.

Hi James,

Just a point of clarification, this was posted under the A.W. Tozer section, I am assuming this was accidental?

It's a fearful thing to dishonor the name of God's anointed. Though Finney sleeps in Christ, there will be a day of reckoning where every disparaging remark will march against the tongues that hurled them, and God will Himself avenge.

James, I wouldn't waste any time with these discernment watchdogs and/or armchair theologians whose public railments condemn them. They not only curse Charles Finney (who lead thousands upon thousands to Jesus Christ with genuine salvation) but they'll come against [i]anyone[/i] usually who is not of their own rotten brand of Calvinism (or whatever elite theology they subscribe to).

Wow, I hope this hasn't opened a can of worms! I'm not looking for a fight; I'm just warning a brother to steer clear of the plethora of cheap junk out there on the internet.

Brother Paul

Its funny to me how many people criticize him and haven't actually ever read anything by Finney. If they read any of his sermons or books they would obviously soon realize that he was an amazing communicator of the Gospel of Christ and was definately not a false prophet.

I ran into alot of this criticism of Finney about a year ago. I've found that it's the same people who criticized him in his day. The Reformed branch of theology dislikes Finney. R.C. Sproul has concluded that Finney was not a Christian. He wrote,

"In the nineteenth century, there was a preacher who became very popular in America, who wrote a book on theology, coming out of his own training in law, in which he made no bones about his Pelagianism. He rejected not only Augustinianism, but he also rejected semi-Pelagianism and stood clearly on the subject of unvarnished Pelagianism, saying in no uncertain terms, without any ambiguity, that there was no Fall and that there is no such thing as original sin. This man went on to attack viciously the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and in addition to that, to repudiate as clearly and as loudly as he could the doctrine of justification by faith alone by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This man’s basic thesis was, we don’t need the imputation of the righteousness of Christ because we have the capacity in and of ourselves to become righteous. His name: Charles Finney, one of America’s most revered evangelists. Now, if Luther was correct in saying that sola fide is the article upon which the Church stands or falls, if what the reformers were saying is that justification by faith alone is an essential truth of Christianity, who also argued that the substitutionary atonement is an essential truth of Christianity; if they’re correct in their assessment that those doctrines are essential truths of Christianity, the only conclusion we can come to is that Charles Finney was not a Christian. I read his writings and I say, “I don’t see how any Christian person could write this.” And yet, he is in the Hall of Fame of Evangelical Christianity in America. He is the patron saint of twentieth-century Evangelicalism. And he is not semi-Pelagian; he is unvarnished in his Pelagianism."

Well Its nice to know Im not alone! I personally like alot of what Finney has said, and to say these things about a man that was so powerfully used...(regardless of denomination) just seems so wrong.

yes it was accidental, sorry about that, I was reading an article in A.W. Tozers forum when I decided to post this thread, not thinking about it until it had been posted, sorry!

This man went on to attack viciously the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and in addition to that, to repudiate as clearly and as loudly as he could the doctrine of justification by faith alone by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This man’s basic thesis was, we don’t need the imputation of the righteousness of Christ because we have the capacity in and of ourselves to become righteous.

Charles Finney didn't really believe in such trash did he?

One of the man used in my walk with God and who by the Spirit led me to know the true and the living God in my life is Charles Finney eventhough he is centuries away from me! I personally am revived because I found about this man’s articles in SI! Let the criticizers do what he did to America actually to the world with his prayer partner Daniel Nash and then I will give them ear for the kingdom of God is not a matter of words but of power! Let’s not waste our time on this kind of people that we may not be taken with their foully! Lets move on with what is good and honest for the judge of this world will not slumber or sleep and will show Himself strong on behalf of His saints!!!

Your sis. Mek.

God no doubt used Mr. Finney to give me knowledge of the truth. With Finney I began to understand the scriptures for the first time and was amazed as the Bible came to life and had new meaning. I wasn't reading his book (Revival Lectures) to "look" for the truth. I read it because I had a passion for revival. I had quoted him some during a (uneducated - zeal without knowledge) revival and I didn't really know much about him. My life has been changed upside down?

So he is a pretty good guy I'd say.

This man went on to attack viciously the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and in addition to that, to repudiate as clearly and as loudly as he could the doctrine of justification by faith alone by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This man’s basic thesis was, we don’t need the imputation of the righteousness of Christ because we have the capacity in and of ourselves to become righteous.

Charles Finney didn't really believe in such trash did he?

7. He can not plead as our Advocate that He has paid our debt, in such a sense that He can demand our discharge on the ground of justice. He has not paid our debt in such a sense that we do not still owe it. He has not atoned for our sins in such a sense that we might not still be justly punished for them. Indeed, such a thing is impossible and absurd. One being can not suffer for another in such a sense as to remove the guilt of that other. He may suffer for another's guilt in such a sense that it will be safe to forgive the sinner, for whom the suffering has been endured; but the suffering of the substitute can never, in the least degree, diminish the intrinsic guilt of the criminal. Our Advocate may urge that He has borne such suffering for us to honor the law that we had dishonored, that now it is safe to extend mercy to us; but He never can demand our discharge on the ground that we do not deserve to be punished. The fact of our intrinsic guilt remains, and must forever remain; and our forgiveness is just as much an act of sovereign mercy, as if Christ had never died for us.

Finney's theology had no room for God to be both just and the justifier through substitutionary atonement. His doctrine in this regard was identical to that of Pelagius. According to Finney's own words quoted above one cannot be discharged from sin debt on the ground of justice which means that God cannot "justify" a sinner and still remain "just." What about Romans 3:21-26?

Grace and peace
Olan

As pertains to Original Sin I think Finney made the mistake of trying to understand the place that a unregenerate person is in through the eyes of being regenerate. This is a serious problem as it totally misunderstands the place a sinner is actually in while alienated from the life of God. It has serious implications and effects on ones theology also. Sure, I can tell a sinner to 'obey God' and live a righteous life because it is my experience that [u]I can[/u]. But the reason why I can is that God is working in me both to will and to do His great pleasure by the Holy Spirit. In other words, unlike the unregenerate, I have the Paraclete walking alongside helping me bear the fruit of the Spirit unto obedience.

This is where we get into a pickle. We are culpable for our crimes against God because at any given time we could have chosen to obey Him and we have resisted the Holy Spirit as He has pressed us to walk in the light that we have. However, 'obedience' is not the only issue by any means. Christ did not come to make bad men good He came to make dead men live (Ravenhill). Man lived alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that was in them through the blindness of their hearts. They needed to be 'regenerated'. This is more than simply changing ones mind. This is God coming in and making a new creature. This [u]is[/u] a Divine miracle. If any man be in Christ he/she is a [i]new creature[/i]. Finney was wrong to assert that regeneration is not a miracle. It is more than me making myself a new heart. What the Hyper Calvinists of Finney's day had done- Finney, unfortunately, took the opposite position and as a result was never really in balance (in my opinion). He placed man's salvation very much in man's hands and that is a serious problem if it is over stepped. Salvation soon becomes in practice the work of man 'working out' his/her own salvation in continual fear and trembling. Sounds biblical? What is the 'work'?

Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent." (John 6)

This is why, to me it is important to understand the nature of 'working out' our salvation. Faith has been called "right response to revelation". God reveals and we respond. If I do not respond rightly- it is [u]not[/u] faith. This is why 'self-examination' can be dangerous if it is not in the hands of the Holy Spirit. This is why examination in the hands of a well meaning preacher is also dangerous. God is working in us to will and do His good pleasure; our 'work' is to respond rightly to Him as He [i]reveals[/i]. We respond as He reveals. This is akin to the light that we are to walk in.

Either way we look at it, we have to be careful not to base our theology on our own present experience. I am utterly dependent to see the condition of sinners through the eyes of scripture. Error begets error. I like Finney on many things, but I also think that he was wrong in some areas. We have to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.

Question to robertw and to oversear; Have you read Systematic Theology by Finney?

Hi John,

Finney's works are quite extensive and involved. Following them is a very mind consuming task. I am mostly familiar with His Revival's of Religion and Memoirs, but I have read much of his systematic theology as well as related sermons and lectures. I don't count myself an expert on Finney by any stretch. For those who may not know, Finney studied to be a lawyer, so he is heavily influenced by that. It is quite circular also because he was once told that the laws that govern our land were based upon the scriptures. This sparked his interest in the bible and eventually he was converted.

He lived in a time when folk were basically told "You shall- you shant, you can- you can't. you will- you won't, and you'll be damned if you don't" (something like that). He arrived at a time that when someone needed to break this gridlock between the sinner and God. As Tozer once said to the effect, I do not agree with many of his conclusions, but he certainly got things moving again.

God Bless,

Robert

Overseer wrote:

Charles Finney wrote: Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. He can not plead as our Advocate that He has paid our debt, in such a sense that He can demand our discharge on the ground of justice. He has not paid our debt in such a sense that we do not still owe it. He has not atoned for our sins in such a sense that we might not still be justly punished for them. Indeed, such a thing is impossible and absurd. One being can not suffer for another in such a sense as to remove the guilt of that other. He may suffer for another's guilt in such a sense that it will be safe to forgive the sinner, for whom the suffering has been endured; but the suffering of the substitute can never, in the least degree, diminish the intrinsic guilt of the criminal. Our Advocate may urge that He has borne such suffering for us to honor the law that we had dishonored, that now it is safe to extend mercy to us; but He never can demand our discharge on the ground that we do not deserve to be punished. The fact of our intrinsic guilt remains, and must forever remain; and our forgiveness is just as much an act of sovereign mercy, as if Christ had never died for us.

If he denied that Christ fully paid the debt for our sins, how then could he have been saved? I don't care what any man has done, if you deny Christ the glory for your salvation, if you give up the blood, you are lost.

I thought I'd take another part of Finney's message "Christ, our Advocate" and let him explain his substitutionary view a bit more. Overseer provided #7; this is an excerpt from #8 of the same sermon. Hope this helps elucidate the issue at hand.

"They (theologians) insist upon it that the atonement of Christ is the ground of our forgiveness. They seem to assume that He literally bore the penalty for us in such a sense that Christ now no longer appeals to mercy, but demands justice for us. To be consistent they must maintain that Christ does not plead at a mercy-seat for us, but having paid our debt, appears before a throne of justice, and demands our discharge.

I cannot accept this view. I insist that His offering could not touch the question of our intrinsic desert of damnation. His appeal is to the infinite mercy of God, to His loving disposition to pardon; and He points to His atonement, not as demanding our release, but as fulfilling a condition upon which our release is honorable to God. His obedience to the law and the shedding of His blood He may plead as a substitute for the execution of the law upon us -- in short, He may plead the whole of His work as God-man and Mediator. Thus He may give us the full benefit of what He has done to sustain the authority of law and to vindicate the character of the Law-giver, as fulfilling conditions that have rendered it possible for God to be just and still justify the penitent sinner."

So, Christ did not satisfy Divine justice when He died? I guess His death on the cross wasn't really all it's cracked up to be then. [b]Shame on anyone who believes that.[/b] SHOW ME SCRIPTURE that backs up Finney's point. I don't understand how people can worm their way around believing in Christ's full payment for our sins just because some preacher said so. Forget about what Finney said, forget about what Ravenhill, Reidhead, and Washer says. It doesn't matter what man has to say about anything. It only matters what God has said, and He cried with a loud voice [b]"It is finished!"[/b] and He sealed it with His blood.

And if such a belief leads to anti-nomianism (as some have said it does), then we can be assured that the person is most likely unregenerate. If i could have saved myself i would have done it along time ago. Re-read Romans and Hebrews, then come back and tell me if you still agree with Mr. Finney.

Hi everyone. I'm glad to see some actual quotes from this man as it gives me an opportunity to look at some of these things I've only heard about.

Brother Paul, it doesn't seem like the material you quoted changes much from what Overseer has quoted. For instance, Finney is quoted here as saying

I insist that His offering could not touch the question of our intrinsic desert of damnation. His appeal is to the infinite mercy of God, to His loving disposition to pardon; and He points to His atonement, not as demanding our release, but as fulfilling a condition upon which our release is honorable to God.

But were not we, who are Christ's, crucified, buried, and resurrected with Him? is he asserting that Christ's giving us His life was only a payment for sins in a most general sense and not at all in any personal sense for each individual that is His?

The sense that I get from reading this is that he is saying that Christ's blood was shed so that it may be [u]continually offered or presented[/u] before God so as to placate the wrath of God upon those who are always and continually deserving of His wrath and that Christ now is in Heaven making intercession by pleading and appealing to God's sense of mercy while pointing to the blood that He shed so that God may have a [b]sense[/b] of justice in the satisfaction of the demands of His law but only a [b]sense[/b], since he says it is [i]honorable[/i] not just.

It would seem then that he is saying that we all stand every moment in constant jeopardy of our souls.

How then is there [b]any[/b] peace with God? Would this not rather leave for us a continual and uncertain approach to God for peace, rather than lasting peace?

How can anything less than complete and perfect justice be [b][i]honorable[/b][/i] with God when it comes to the demands of His law. It's as though Finney is saying that the only thing that Christ's shed blood will accomplish for us is to appease or turn away God's anger when we sin.

What of Christ's life then? Does he mean to say that His, that is Christ's life, is not imputed to us? that we do not wear His righteous garments by faith? What, are we naked before God every hour? What, does the scripture say in vain

[b][color=000000] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.[/color][/b]

and

[b][color=000000]ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.[/color][/b]

Well then, if we are hid with Christ and have put on Christ and are in Him and He in us does God still reckon us dead? If not dead, then alive and if alive then alive [b]in Christ[/b], [b] by Christ[/b] having not a righteousness which is [b]our own[/b]

[b][color=000000] which is of the law... [/color][/b]

[b][color=000000]...but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:[/color][/b]

What then, is it not a righteousness? Is it rather an honorableness? Is this what the inspired author said, that we have been made

the honorableness of God in Him?

No!

The scripture says

[b][color=000000] For he hath made him to be sin [u]for us[/u]...[/color][/b]

[b][color=000000] who knew no sin[/color][/b]

[b][color=000000]that [i]we[/i] might [u]be made[/u] the righteousness of God in him.[/color][/b]

What then, has God left off from the building of His Temple is us? Did He begin a good work and not finish it? Are we not then

[b][color=000000]a new creature[/color][/b]

Did God create this [b]new creature[/b], with, as Finney puts it, an

intrinsic desert of damnation

Some might say or ask, yes, but what of the old man? What does the scripture say

[b][color=000000] Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.[/color][/b]

Wherefore the Apostle asks

[b][color=000000]Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?[/color][/b]

For the scripture also does not say in vain

[b][color=000000] For if, when we were enemies, we were [u]reconciled to God by the death of his Son[/u], much more, being reconciled, we shall be....[/color][/b]

[b][color=000000]...saved by his life.[/color][/b]

for He was

[b][color=000000]delivered for our offences[/color][/b]

and was

[b][color=000000]raised again for our justification[/color][/b]

Am I missing something brothers?

Well, on second thought ...

Had shelved something that I wasn't sure was necessary or timely but following back up again here, think there is great misunderstanding of Finney's intent and a great overshooting of the point. Have a suspicion that drawing out so little from the greater context of this particular writing is to make an attempt at putting words into his mouth. Off the shelf;

"They (theologians) insist upon it that the atonement of Christ is the ground of our forgiveness. They seem to assume that He literally bore the penalty for us in such a sense that Christ now [u]no longer[/u] appeals to mercy, but demands justice for us. To be consistent they must maintain that Christ does not plead at a mercy-seat for us, but having paid our debt, appears before a throne of justice, [u]and demands our discharge.[/u]

Thanks Paul for bringing in more context and John as well;

Finney is explaining the work partially from the standpoint of confronting universalistic belief.

"[i]in such a sense...[/i]" Is oft repeated here.
Think there is something very important in Finney's expression and quite applicable to where we find ourselves today.

[i]... that Christ now no longer appeals to mercy, but demands justice for us. ... but having paid our debt, appears before a throne of justice, and demands our discharge[/i]

Is this not exactly the sentiment behind a 'easy-believism'? And that with a great emphasis or over emphasis, that there is nothing you can do, you cannot 'earn it', just accept it, "paid in full" ... on and on infinitum. The issue is not that these things are not ultimately true in the right sense, but the place of emphasis. Seems this is at the heart of both the cheapening and the universal ideals. Has it not taken the repent out of repentance? Shame, guilt, punishment, suffering for our sins ... [i]still[/i]. Has not the saint still a death sentence hanging over his head no different than the rest of humanity, don't get the wrong idea, just that [i]that[/i] payment is still coming due.

Is not the gospel ultimately just an exasperating, practically unutterable ... [i]Awe[/i]. Not only are we not worthy of the thought, merely;

Luk 17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

And to note, this is when [i]ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you[/i]. Can well see the shifting emphasis of some who have gone back to preaching much on the 'law' if it is to just cause some kind of true evaluation of conscience, Jesus Himself going even further to the heart of the matter, always. This society is so conditioned to be comfort bound that even it's Christians have crafted all the catch-phraseology that steals the steam of anguish and soul searching in lieu of OSAS, "[u]just[/u] come to Jesus'. Again the trouble is not the truth hidden and inherent under the guise of these things but, [i]Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.[/i]

The great fear seems to be the fear of coming clean, of a right introspection, of being inspected by God Himself, seeing our true worth both from His perspective and ours. The awe is that He could, would be mindful of us ... and yet it is true. How staggering now as it was upon the first interruption of light shinning in the darkness. [i]Be ye thankful[/i] ? !

There is no getting around all the [i]If's[/i] of scripture, of enduring and endurance, of [i]cost[/i], the most important and now overshadowed with Christian lingo and what's in it for us sentiment; God's cost, God's Son ... To really think of it, it is horrifying. And to turn and make light of it, simplify it, humanize it...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, Christ did not satisfy Divine justice when He died? I guess His death on the cross wasn't really all it's cracked up to be then.

I cannot accept this view. I insist that His offering could not touch the question of our intrinsic desert of damnation. His appeal is to the infinite mercy of God, to His loving disposition to pardon; and He points to His atonement, not as demanding our release, [u]but as fulfilling a condition[/u] upon which our release is honorable to God.

There is the answer to "It is finished". Take note of the particular wordings he is using, [i]the question of our intrinsic desert of damnation[/i], is this not so?

Take the [i]demanding our release[/i]. How much of this is exactly what is heard from the presumptuous and spurious preachers of the gospel of plenty, word-of-faith, the 'claim' jumpers. It is the expression of "How do I get in on this", "What's in it for me?" rather than being bowled over with ... "[i]What do I have to do with Thee"?[/i] That the demons exhibited and even the Lord expressed towards us, [i]Your father the devil[/i] before we received pardon at His expense.

What is deserved versus what has been given. "Lord, Lord" versus "Have mercy on me, a sinner". This doesn't change anything of the sort even for the long suffering, long tarrying saints. What might one say of the apostle John so long after the Lords resurrection, Rev 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead.

Phi 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, [i]work out your own salvation with fear and trembling[/i].

I don't understand how people can worm their way around believing in Christ's full payment for our sins just because some preacher said so

Perhaps a reading through a recent posting by John of George Whitefield would go a long way in understanding Finney's concerns here.

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=1007]The Holy Spirit convincing[/url]

Comments from and towards it;

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=11777&forum=36&start=0&viewmode=flat&order=1]HolyGhost reproves world of sin, righteousness and judgement[/url]

Yikes! We argue with a dead man (though I will make no presumption on his state of eternal life) who has no opportunity to clarify or defend himself. No court in this nation would allow that.

Would we not do better to avoid arguements which generate strife.

Chris JD you did a great job handling the truth but so have many others in this string.

There is a world of people to be reached for Christ.

Remember that while Finney was preaching, unnoticed there was a man, Father Nash mighty in prayer and fasting, crying out to God's mercy for the salvation of souls and revival of communities.

The Holy Spirit moved! People were not argued into the kingdom, but it was by God's grace they were saved, and that not of themselves, it was a gift of God and not of works lest any of them could boast.

They heard the word, they believed and they were sealed by that Holy Spirit of promise.

If Finney was wrong, God has already dealt with it. I don't know nor understand what strongholds he was up against, I will not presume anything.

We have the same word of truth to handle that he had but I fear God and pray as Paul did that He will give us all the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him so that we may know...

and also that we will devote ourselves to prayer as Nash did with an alert mind and a thankful heart... and pray that God will give us many opportunities to preach about his secret plan-that Christ is also "for you Gentiles". And pray that we will proclaim this message as clearly as we should. And that we will live wisely among those who are not Christians, and make the most of every opportunity. and that our conversation be gracious and effective so that we will have the right answer for everyone.

In fact, please God I pray let us reach someone for Christ today, in Jesus' name!

Yikes!

Hello KD,

Perceptions are often not the reality here, but having said that it is worth the attemp at clarifying that which can be clarified. Have a great affinity to Father Nash, in fact clipped a whole lot on the matter of prayer from this, it just seemed to confuse myself as much as it would have others ... :-?

But there are some other items that can bring more understanding to all this, from Finney himself. Have no desire to defend or purpose anything other than that. A couple;

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=12844&post_id=99424&order=0&viewmode=thread&pid=0&forum=34#99424]CONVERSION TO CHRIST. ~ Charles Finney[/url]

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=643]On the Atonement [/url]

Hebrews 7:19 [b]For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. [/b]

What hope do we have if Christ did not satisfy Divine wrath, as Finney said He did not.

They seem to assume that He literally bore the penalty for us in such a sense that Christ now no longer appeals to mercy, but demands justice for us. . . I cannot accept this view.

25-27 [b]Wherefore he is able also to save them [i]to the uttermost[/i] that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, [i]separate from sinners[/i], and made higher than the heavens;
Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. [/b]

Able to save to the uttermost. This does not sound like a Savior Who can simply plead for our mercy, but rather One Who has aquired such mercy for us. And countering easy-believism, our Lord is "Seperate from sinners".

8:12 [b]For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. [/b]

9:12-14 [b]Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained [i]eternal redemption[/i] for us.
For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
[i]How much more shall the blood of Christ[/i], who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?[/b]

We cannot be reactionary to the truth of the Gospel. There is nothing wrong with the truth that Christ has paid our awful sin debt in full (He is a Mighty Savior). The fault is with the false prophets and wolves who leave out repentence and self-denial.

10:14 [b]For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.[/b]

19-22 [b]Having therefore, brethren, [i]boldness [/i]to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
And having an high priest over the house of God;
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith. [/b]

26-29 [b]For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? [/b]

There must be balance. Because of the prevalence of anti-nomianism today, we have gone too far right and have given up Grace. We don't want people to think they can live however they want, and still be saved. So, in our zeal we've become Pharisaical, demanding that we must keep up the payments on what Christ has already paid in full. It doesn't have to do with wether or not i'm doing what i can to make sure i'm saved. The issue is wether or not God has so radically changed my heat that i now do those things which are pleasing to Him through the death and resurrection of Christ.

Brethren, I still don't think we have a proper understanding of Finney's point. We have to understand that Finney was battling very strong forces of Universalism and Antinomianism in his day, and many of his messages were seasoned to that specification. I've read quite a few Finney sermons, and though I can't say I agree 100% with everything he taught, I am also not too quick to call this great man of God a heretic on a public forum.

In fact, I deeply admire Finney; the Holy Spirit has used many of his messages to prick my heart in ways no other preacher has been able. There's just something about Finney's mind, how he understood the deep things of man's conscience and moral convictions. And the way he was able to convey the legal ramnifications of sin, righteousness and judgment was absolutely staggering. Brothers, it is not right to accuse this man of God as we would an enemy of the cross. Like it has already been pointed out - if Finney was in error, God will deal justice. I, however, happen to believe that Finney's crowning will be a staggering spectacle in heaven, and I don't know anyone here who would volunteer to be next in line.

Seriously, I wonder if Leonard Ravenhill would log onto SI and post such an accusation of Finney being a heretic. Would Daniel Nash, with all his deep intimacy and prevailing power in God, join forces with a man who preached such blatant falsehood and spend the last years of his life laboring in soul hot prayer over a heretic's "revival"? Yet some of us seem to know more than Nash and Ravenhill and Keith Green and other saints who have endorsed and have been transformed through Charles Finney's ministry.

The important question to ask, though, is what did Jesus Christ think about Charles Finney? Did God endorse Finney? That, to me, is really all that matters. It's God's gospel, not ours. Like Nicodemus reminded the Sannhedrin, let's not be quick to condemn this sleeping saint till we read more about him, get different perspectives, and ascertain a message's proper contextual light when we come across a view we think is heretical. God evidently didn't have a huge problem with Finney's heretical theology, at least not judging by the way Finney was used. I challenge you to read the mind-blowing accounts of his revivals in the 1830's. If someone still has a bone to pick with Finney's understanding of God, they should then beseech God in the Spirit through their [i]correct[/i] interpretation of scripture and have sweeping, blazing revivals of an even greater magnitude than Finney's! Go and fan entire cities into flames of repentance through your [i]correct[/i] understanding of the atonement, and go produce genuine converts where over 80% keep the faith and go to the mission field. This, brother, is not my challenge; Ravenhill said something similar in his potent message "The Burning Heart," where he aimed his gun at all the stagnate theologians who are prone to criticize Charles Finney.

Friends, please, I say we stop maligning Finney on SI, and instead shift our attention to our own walks, and look into why God doesn't use us like he used Finney, even though we understand scripture correctly and Finney was a Pelagian heretic. Ravenhill (who greatly admired Finney) rightly said, "Your theology can be as straight as a gun barrel - and just as empty."

Brother Paul

What hope do we have if Christ did not satisfy Divine wrath, as Finney said He did not.

Read "On the Atonement" linked below, it goes a long way in making sense of what was stated from these out takes.

Hi again everyone.

This is from the qoute of Charles Finney that Overseer shared with us, please indulge me that I have made the font bigger.

[b][size=small]"The fact of our intrinsic guilt remains, [u]and must forever remain[/u]; and our forgiveness is just as much an act of sovereign mercy, [u]as if Christ had never died for us[/u]." [/size][/b]

[b][color=000000]...put on the new man, which after God is [u]created in righteousness[/u] and true holiness.[/color][/b]

[b][color=000000]And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the [u]redemption of the transgressions[/u] that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.[/color][/b]

[b][color=000000]Ye are bought with a price[/color][/b]

Finney

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength." Here then it is plain, that all the law demands, is the exercise of whatever strength [b]we have[/b], in the service of God. Now, as [b]entire sanctification consists in perfect obedience to the law of God[/b], and as the law requires nothing more than the right use of whatever strength [b]we have[/b], it is, of course, forever settled, that a state of entire sanctification is [b]attainable[/b] in this life, on the ground of [b]natural ability [/b](Ibid. , p. 407).

[i]WHERE IS CHRIST IN ALL THIS ??? [/i]

1 Thessalonians 5:23
And the very [b]God of peace sanctify you wholly[/b]; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 13:12
Wherefore Jesus also, that[b] He might sanctify[/b] the people [b][color=FF0000]with his own blood,[/color][/b] suffered without the gate.

Brethren, my heart was pricked while in Church tonight. I felt as though i couldn't get through to God, and He convicted me of my judgmental attitude. While i still don't agree with Charles Finney's understanding of the atonement (or maybe my misunderstanding of what he taught), i'm no one to be saying who's wrong and who's right within the Church.

While i firmly believe in contending for the faith, my focus on God must be maintained first. It seems that when i become dogmatic (please understand that i do believe right doctrine to be of great importance), i leave my first love. The Lord is teaching me more and more about charity. . .

So, this is my withdrawal from the conversation until i have a greater understanding of the different schools of thought. Sorry brethren for my puffed-upedness ( :-P ). I still maintain my belief that Christ's death is the [b]only sufficient[/b] thing to redeem us from iniquity, and that any deviation from this is heresy. But i can't stand up and judge others, who've (as Brother Paul said) been mightily used by God.

Will i see Charles Finney in heaven? I don't know. I hope so, because many souls were won to Christ through his ministry, many benefit from it today, and God would have all men to be saved. As stated earlier (and the thought crossed my mind as well), it is God's Gospel, not ours.

In love, joe

JoeA,

Your humility is most admirable. Who can determine who's really used by God? I can say boldy here that you were used by God to speak of His Grace just now.

No doubt, we must conduct ourselves with utmost charity amongst brethren, while Truth has to be maintained with the support of Scripture, Finney or no Finney, defence of man is ultimately foolish, but proclaiming the Truth according to Scripture against any deviation from It , is every Christian's duty.

I didn't remotely sense any puffed-upedness from you, well, all the same, let not satan accuse you wrongfully in this case.

And if you did see yourself in such, allow me to partake in this puffed-upedness for the love and gratitude of the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

My view is, if by one's work, one million brought to some understanding of the gospel who think they are saved, while another two millions misled, and Christ's Work undermined.....well, just as in cases like Hinn, Moon..or ...God shall judge accordingly for sure. We don't judge anyone's work, but we ought to speak out when we encounter falsehood or errors. So shall He judge you and me and all the rest of us according to our faith in Christ's all!

Be it ever the praise of Christ alone, Grace alone and Scripture alone !!

To God's glory alone.

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you;
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Well, if the rock on whom Christ would rest his church found Paul difficult to understand, my simple mind should find trouble wrestling concepts based millenia apart, eh? And believe me, it does. Romans is easily misinterpreted - and at least in my experience Romans is usually considered to require interpretation; as Paul appears to be writing conceptually in many cases [epistles] with sweeping ideas that are elaborately explained - and not left to be rooted. See, Paul wrote in what may be seen as a Grecian style in letters that weren't so much historical documents as, well, letters. So before we condemn anybody by Paul's writing, it might be best to lay our head upon other scripture.

Christ was in emphasis what the passover lamb referred to (ala Isaiah and Exodus). The lamb's (who was without blemish) blood was placed above doorways and on doorposts in Exodus as a sign to the angel of death that he should not seek the inhabitants of this household. Then the sacrifices were installed as such. Sure, it may seem like the lamb took on the sins of the world, but does Isaiah or Exodus ever state that specifically? (Ex:12, Isa 53) Maybe I'm a bit off-focus, here, but Paul isn't even placed as the head of the Church by capability or birthright, and the apostles were known to disagree from time to time. I recall there were quite a few conferences in the lifetime of the early church in which this very discussion more than likely took place.

Specifically to mamaluk -

Two points: if a man be preaching in the name of God, might it be assumed that at least at some point in time, God was a central focus to his reasoning? If it not be stated every third sentence and the emphasis is still present, then is it still invalid? Should we just not study the book of Esther? I ask this as a valid question, although the tone may make it seem rhetorical.

And to the greater community again -
Something that does come to mind, though -

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you.

I will repeatedly argue with people based on their conceptions. I have been condemned and branded a heretic. I wouldn't even deny this to be the case. But I do try my best on this very issue - Finney seemed to approach the table not with preconceived theology so much as a reaching mind. Ravenhill, the same. Paris Reidhead describes this very struggle with an approach to humanism in 10 shekels and a shirt, especially as it relates to himself in Africa. I'm pretty sure its a recurring theme over much of this site's plethora of sermons and a great many articles.

Now I'm not saying that Finney was right nor wrong. I am gonna say that he probably had a more thorough understanding of the subject than any of us who have posted thus far have shown. And that should request of us two things: respect, and consideration. Just as the Bereans did, so they were commended. Likewise, let us try to be noble. (Acts 17)

For those of you out there who dislike how much I use myself as an example or emphasise belief (ala the word "I"): I'm sorry, I'm the best one I got.

Paul West,
I thought about entering this discussion and what I might say here. Then I read your post and now feel that I could neither add to it nor improve it. God bless you brother.

To all those who have expressed a notion about who they might see or not see in heaven I give you this little saying of D. L. Moody's

Moody said that there would be would experience three suprises in heaven:
1)Who's there.
2)Who's not there.
and 3) THAT WE'RE THERE!

Wyatt

I, uh, should note that two preceeding posts were submitted while I was working on the one 'fore this.

Specifically to mamaluk -

PTywama,

Two points: if a man be preaching in the name of God, might it be assumed that at least at some point in time, God was a central focus to his reasoning? If it not be stated every third sentence and the emphasis is still present, then is it still invalid? Should we just not study the book of Esther? I ask this as a valid question, although the tone may make it seem rhetorical.

It was unclear to me as how or what you were asking me?

The Finney quotes on this thread posted some doubts to me as I read them and tried to compare his one particular quote to the Bible in light of self-effort or self-produced sanctification.

I'm not interested in Finney's anything except that if I read something that sounded contrary to the Bible, I would try to bring it out.

It doesn't matter really, as for people are concerned, me, you, he, she, they...

Let me do try to respond to the part where you said if a man be preaching in the name of God...my first question will be, which 'God'? In this case, the God of Israel? or God ,the Lord Jesus Christ who shed His blood and died and resurrected from the Cross?

The God who sanctified Israel by law and obedience, or the God who sanctified His Church by the Holy Spirit via the Finished Work of the Cross by Grace through faith.

Or Just any God with lots of god-talk and a buffet of scriptures tossed back and forth not rightly dividing and understood.

In my mind,all the confusion in doctrinal and theological matters is brought upon by wrong division, or not understood rightly divided, or accurately taught, in scope, structure and context.

No matter, whatever I said that bothers or confuses you, toss it out.

thanks

Let me do try to respond to the part where you said if a man be preaching in the name of God...my first question will be, which 'God'? In this case, the God of Israel? or God ,the Lord Jesus Christ who shed His blood and died and resurrected from the Cross?

The God who sanctified Israel by law and obedience, or the God who sanctified His Church by the Holy Spirit via the Finished Work of the Cross by Grace through faith.

I would anticipate that the God if Israel is the God of Israel, be it the Father, the one whom Abraham saught, and Christ at Calvary... I pretty much wasn't aimed at...

Or Just any God with lots of god-talk and a buffet of scriptures tossed back and forth not rightly dividing and understood.

In my mind,all the confusion in doctrinal and theological matters is brought upon by wrong division, or not understood rightly divided, or accurately taught, in scope, structure and context.

Aye, I'm not sure if I could have expressed it any better. I often feel this way. Unfortunately, I'm not above being/having been subject to it. And many places I turn, I find those same things which I was not "...accurately taught, in scope, structure and context..." have not been altered in the way they were presented to me. So at the risk of appearing egotistical, I'd say that its a very likely thing there are a few issues here which should be straigtened out (or more or less understood, in a backwards literal sort of way).

I can't vouch for the man, but "atonement" and "sacrifice" and "sanctification" all have meanings which seem more readily applied than understood. They often have addendums in the more prevalent western stigmas which I have been around that do not necessarily evolve from scripture but from traditional understanding. Not that this is so much bad, mind you, as so often misunderstood and ignored.

I rather wish I could read Greek, it might make some of the stuff that Paul says a bit less... overbearing.

To make Finney (or any man) our model is dangerous. After all, he is not God. Yet to discount the magnificent work God did through the man is equally dangerous. Either way we grieve the Spirit, and take our eyes off of God. We miss the mark!

Might I suggest that the danger is not so much in the man or his methods, as in the one who runs with it and uses it to promote a self-righteous, self-focused, self-dependent kind of works religion. I call this promoting the “other” gospel.

That fatal outcome can happen with anything – including the Bible itself. I am a piano teacher and see it happening with the best of pedagogues and their methods. Zealous teachers grab onto the method, and religiously adhere to it; However, they have lost the pioneer vision and spirit of its founder. And that is so sad for their pupils. Music learning becomes a list of rules, should's and shouldn'ts, and all the while inspiration, freedom, and joy is lost. (Can anyone relate?)

Any good method can become a tyrant when it degenerates into this kind of practice.

Maybe Finney's pitfall was this: Seeing God's great work, and eager to keep it alive forever - he took the reigns from the Spirit and made a method for man to hold. I think of the disciples who wanted to preserve the transifguration by confining it to three tents. It doesn't work that way. God's Spirit can't be confined into tents, books, methods, or any man-made container.

God used Finney in ways that boggle the mind. Yet God left the man with a serious blind spot. I don’t know why God didn’t remove it - maybe so man wouldn’t depend on him and put him on a pedestal. But if we don’t see that blindspot, and if we have the same blind spot --- look out! We are in danger of turning Finney’s methods into a tyrant – for ourselves and also fellow believers.

If Finney tells me I can’t do blah-blah on the Holy Sabbath, do I listen to him because he was such a fine man? No! The Spirit is my conscience, not Finney. And The Bible must take deeper authority in my life than any man.

The holiness movement, as promoted by Finney, with all it’s focus on holy living had some deadly pitfalls:

…. some of Finney’s teachings distorted the purity of the Gospel message in an attempt to control the sinful passions. In his article, Holiness Essential to Salvation, he prescribed a high standard of sanctification and then stated "in proportion as they recede from this they fail of salvation". Finney's Sabbath laws were many; for example, "abstinence of all amusements, and abstinence from walking or riding abroad for exercise."

Harry Ironside (1876-1951), an itinerant preacher and author, shared in his biography, his experience in the Holiness Movement during the early twentieth century. Early in his ministry, he zealously promoted holiness teachings, and was eager to achieve this high level of perfection. However, he soon came to see that the teachings had some negative effects on people. He wrote: "It left a tremendous train of spiritual derelicts" Pg 89 , A Biography, H A Ironside.

Ironside saw disillusioned failures, emotional wrecks, and people who abandoned the faith entirely because they felt that they could never measure up. He also saw many "living in cunningly concealed hypocrisy", trying to hide the fact that they were falling short.

In his own attempts to attain this sanctified state, Ironside was constantly nagged by his own imperfections. Eventually, in total frustration, he left the ministry, believing that he was a bad example. Prior to this he had been preaching four hundred sermons a year. He even considered giving up, and following the way of the world.

The Holy Spirit restored him by revealing to him that he had been focusing on himself all along, and not trusting in the good news. Ironside came to the realization that the grace of Christ was sufficient. As a result, he became an outstanding preacher of the gospel – the Good News.

(Edit Added)
I feel that we learn best through the life and works of Finney by observing what God did, and by keeping God in the forground.

Then our faith in God grows (rather than in any man, including ourselves).

Diane

Hi Chris;

"The [u]fact[/u] of our intrinsic guilt remains, and must forever remain; and our forgiveness is just as much an act of sovereign mercy, [u]as if[/u] Christ had never died for us."

Underscored it differently, does this change the perspective any? Is not our forgiveness in fact an act of sovereign mercy?

One of the great beauties of tarrying in these parts has been the opening up of word definitions, have grown to love them, after all what is it that we are attempting to grasp but understanding, of each other, of all these 'old dead saints' who were used mightily of God...

[b]Intrinsic
INTRIN'SIC

INTRIN'SICAL,[/b] a. [L. intrinsecus; intra and secus.]

1. Inward; internal; hence, true; genuine; real; essential; inherent; not apparent or accidental; as the intrinsic value of gold or silver; the intrinsic merit of an action; the intrinsic worth or goodness of a person.

2. Intimate; closely familiar.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Joe,

Appreciative of your reconsidering not towards any particular bent that might be assumed by those who are seemingly in defense of Finney's words ... just the process itself. Might interject that I know very little of Finney's particular expressions at issue here and grasped a bit of it by investigating after the out takes were presented at the onset. It is redundant but worth repeating the same sentiment expressed by Philologos quite awhile back towards our approach to the scriptures; That we lift up the segments to examine, but be sure to put them back where we found them. (Paraphrased). In other words, context. Context of the [i]whole[/i], the whole of scripture, the whole of men of God that includes and even more importantly exhibits their character, what else have they spoken, written, voiced? It is far too easy to jump to conclusions from slice's or selections without further considering the context and motivation of the whole. In fact, in this instance it would be good to ask, where was the original taken from and was the whole of it even in consideration? There yet may be still some disagreement and that is fine, but has it been given it's proper due? That is a very generic question as it applies here.

But to circle back a moment to a great importance.
"The process". If anything I have learned, better am learning, is that the tremendous expression of so many different saints, both living (In this forum for instance) and dead (Or truly alive if you catch my meaning) is one of constant considering and reconsidering, "Have you considered my servant ..." Of thinking and re-thinking. I know for a fact there are things I do not know, things that are still held in abeyance, things that can only be summarized as ... 'perhaps'. (Another grand word!)

What is learning but discarding and replacing error with truth? Being teachable is a joy, humbled, a virtue not an embarrassment, the greater embarrassment is to hold on to 'save face'
and raises the question; To whom? Mere men? Ah, the folly! It is that wonderful paradox of the faith, going low to be raised up (In the Lords estimation), last-first, the opposites of the worlds ways of thinking and the ways of the Lord.

There are saints in our midst who have tarried 20, 30, 40 years with the Lord and we, the privileged majority are able to learn and grow alongside them, not to mention all the great gleaning available through this vast resource. Overstated? Impossible.

In prayer this morning, the thoughts turned again towards this matter of theology and of approach. Seems to this one that there can be two different primary ways of going about it (amongst many). That we attempt to construct as it were by piecing things together, a crafting of particulars that suit our preference or level of comfortability (A hunch here being that of the root of denominational thinking, "verse overdose"). The other being a sort of 'deconstructing', stripping away at all that is contrary to revealed truth .. and there it gets tricky because of that dastardly, often obtuse and highly suspect word; Opinion.

Still challenged by Oswald Chambers on this, he put it slightly different in stating that "If we are still saying we are sick of ourselves, we are not" (Paraphrased). Same with opinion.... How do I say it without boxing myself into a pickle? :-?

Bluntly though, there is a weariness of my own particular opinion. What does it amount to if it is not beneficial and true, doesn't somehow communicate towards the truth of the inward reality? There is a grand difficulty in articulation and expression that often leaves me puzzled and embarrassed somewhat ... "Do I really grasp what I am talking about?" or has something gotten under the skin, something tweaked with an emotion not understood, opening up some wound that is seen in others ... Do I know something of pride that warrants a pointing out of it when it is seemingly expressed by others? What the motivation but towards healing if a wound is touched and the yelping results? Believe me if anything, there is an awful lot of yelping that first reacts upon conviction of my own faulty perceptions and they are many, still just out of reach, the adjustment of the heart\\head and practical reality. How much more denying and self repudiating is there still to commence? How much more the shifting and uplifting of the Lord to the rightful place of exaltation, not in pious sounding sentiment, but in real time reality? Why such a longing for revival? If this might be taken rightly, a large dose of it is due to being sick of mere men and their opinion, this one first and foremost and I am speaking of us saints in general. Surely there is good opinion, great even in our midst but is full circle back to, how does it measure up? Speculations might contain fact, but are not fact in themselves, otherwise they would no longer be speculations. Am about to go off the rails of confusion so I will stop.

The reason I think we are in a state of deconstruction is because of all the great misrepresentation of the Lord's thought. That is our Theology or ought to be. The simplest things may prove to be the most difficult. Honesty. A right understanding of who were are and Whose we are, where we stand in the Lords estimation and where we fall and fail in obstructing what the Holy Spirit would prefer to be doing in each of us, through us. We clog the channel by underestimating the important things and overestimating the peripheral.

But God gives more grace. Amazing isn't it?

Roadsign's:

Ironside saw disillusioned failures, emotional wrecks, and people who abandoned the faith entirely because they felt that they could never measure up. He also saw many "living in cunningly concealed hypocrisy", trying to hide the fact that they were falling short.

This is a good point. I think the danger becomes our preoccupation with perfection. We need to walk with God and live lives filled with the Holy Spirit. Constant 'self-examination' can lead to dispair.

Ron Bailey has likened our 'examination' for perfection as was that of the High Priest in the Old Testament. The word 'perfect' means simply "as it was intended to be." We were intended to be representations of Jesus Christ. The High Priest would look at the offering for spots and blemishes. Things that were "not as they were intended to be." It was the High Priest's job. Some animals at 6 months may be well, but at a year they develop something; a spot or growth of some kind. Likewise we come into times when the Holy Spirit, speaking that of the High Priest [i]to us[/i] will point to the spot. We have to resolve to deal with what that 'spot' is in order to remain as "we were intended to be." And this is my concern. It is always as if 'man' is doing the examination and using his criteria of 'perfect' (what Christ is supposed to be) as the template. This is that 'taking the reins' from the Holy Spirit, I think.

I think our counsel needs to be, "obey in that area the Holy Spirit is revealing". this is not to say we don't preach on sin, but I think we have to allow God to be God and the Great High Priest to do His job. Let Him call out the imperfections. Let Him do the pointing, etc. etc.

Roadsigns:

... [u]some of Finney’s teachings distorted the purity of the Gospel message in an attempt to control the sinful passions.[/u] In his article, Holiness Essential to Salvation, he prescribed a high standard of sanctification and then stated "in proportion as they recede from this they fail of salvation". Finney's Sabbath laws were many; for example, "abstinence of all amusements, and abstinence from walking or riding abroad for exercise."

Notice the statement... [u]some of Finney’s teachings distorted the purity of the Gospel message in an attempt to control the sinful passions.[/u] this is what the Rabbi's called "putting a fence around the Torah." The idea is that if we make things strict enough then we won't have to fear 'actual transgressions'. We will make rules that keep people back from committing the real sins. This sounds good at first, but as with the Jews these 'commandments of men' become the law of the land.

I think also we run the risk of misrepresenting God. What did our Lord say about the Sabbath? What would the Lord say and what did He do concerning amusements? One of the first scenes we have of Him is at a wedding providing wine for the guests. Was that for the nutritional needs? Why did He not say, "just get on with it! The water will suffice!"? I think at issue is a gross confusion between asceticism and spirituality. They are not the same thing and when we glorify ascetic life styles we run a secondary risk of envying easter religions. I am not spiritual because I deny my body any sense of pleasure, I am Spiritual because I walk in the Spirit and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. The Holy Spirit will keep me in [u]balance[/u].

The reason I think we are in a state of deconstruction is because of all the great misrepresentation of the Lord's thought. That is our Theology or ought to be. The simplest things may prove to be the most difficult. Honesty. A right understanding of who were are and Whose we are, where we stand in the Lords estimation and where we fall and fail in obstructing what the Holy Spirit would prefer to be doing in each of us, through us. We clog the channel by underestimating the important things and overestimating the peripheral.

Well stated Mike.

…. some of Finney’s teachings distorted the purity of the Gospel message in an attempt to control the sinful passions.

ATONEMENT: the governmental substitution of the sufferings of Christ for the punishment of sinners. It is a covering of their sins by his sufferings.

"The major proponent of the governmental view of atonement was Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), by training as a lawyer rather than a clergyman" ([i]Christian Theology[/i]: Millard J. Erickson, pg. 806).

The governmental theory of atonement denies that the justice of God necessarily demands that all the requirements of the law be met. The law is merely the product of God's will, and He can alter or even abrogate it, just as He pleases. Hence:

GOSPEL JUSTIFICATION: it consists in a governmental decree of pardon or amnesty--in arresting and setting aside the execution of the incurred penalty of law--in pardoning and restoring to favor those who have sinned, and those whom the law had pronounced guilty, and upon whom it had passed the sentence of eternal death, and rewarding them as if they had been righteous. Not to be regarded as a forensic or judicial proceeding. An act of grace, not law.

LEGAL JUSTIFICATION: the pronouncement that the justified person is guiltless, or, in other words, that he has not violated the law, that he has done only what he had a legal right to do. An act of law, not grace. It cannot be possible that a sinner can be pronounced just in the eye of law; that he can be justified by deeds of law, or by the law at all.

7. He can not plead as our Advocate that He has paid our debt, in such a sense that He can demand our discharge on the ground of justice. He has not paid our debt in such a sense that we do not still owe it. He has not atoned for our sins in such a sense that we might not still be justly punished for them. Indeed, such a thing is impossible and absurd. One being can not suffer for another in such a sense as to remove the guilt of that other.

. Our Advocate may urge that He has borne such suffering for us to honor the law that we had dishonored, that now it is safe to extend mercy to us; but He never can demand our discharge on the ground that we do not deserve to be punished. The fact of our intrinsic guilt remains, and must forever remain; and our forgiveness is just as much an act of sovereign mercy, as if Christ had never died for us.

However, our justification not only hinges on the mercy of God - it also hinges on the fulfillment of the law. God's nature is not one-sided. He is not merely righteous and demanding, nor merely loving and giving. He is righteous, so much so that sacrifice for sin had to be provided. He is loving, so much so that he provided that sacrifice Himself by giving His Son. This is why I refuse the governmental theory of atonement and hold fast to the penal-substitutionary theory of atonement.

Grace and peace
Olan

OverSeer's:

The governmental theory of atonement denies that the justice of God necessarily demands that all the requirements of the law be met. The law is merely the product of God's will, and He can alter or even abrogate it, just as He pleases. Hence:

GOSPEL JUSTIFICATION: it consists in a governmental decree of pardon or amnesty--in arresting and setting aside the execution of the incurred penalty of law--in pardoning and restoring to favor those who have sinned, and those whom the law had pronounced guilty, and upon whom it had passed the sentence of eternal death, and rewarding them as if they had been righteous. Not to be regarded as a forensic or judicial proceeding. An act of grace, not law.

This is why salvation is so fragile in the G.O.G. system. The sinner is viewed as a prisoner pardoned under the condition that he/she never sin again. To sin is to forfeit pardon and come under the direct judgment of the Law as if one had never been pardoned to begin with.

Gov't of God:

The fact of our intrinsic guilt remains, and must forever remain; and our forgiveness is just as much an act of sovereign mercy, as if Christ had never died for us.

If this is true then why would Christ need to die at all? I'm reminded of the brutal nature of the sacrifices of the Old Testament. The gallons and gallons of blood would be akin to working in a slaughter house. But it was not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats could take away sins. The fact remains, without the shedding of blood there is no remission.

Olan said:

However, our justification not only hinges on the mercy of God - it also hinges on the fulfillment of the law.

I now believe that mercy is 100% sufficient. It is not half of the formula, but neither is law. Actually, without law, then what would mercy be??? Without law, how can “mercy” be mercy? Why would anyone need mercy without law? Do you know what I mean? There is a faulty way of understanding mercy/judgment that leads one to believe that God’s mercy, atonement, Christ’s death and resurrection is not enough. Therefore we must be careful to prop up our salvation with our own efforts – to polish up the bits that God might miss (with his other half).

I know that you are not saying that, but that is what is so easily assumed.

God's nature is not one-sided. He is not merely righteous and demanding, nor merely loving and giving.

Perhaps I’m getting picky about words, but I think I’m reflecting a much-held misunderstanding about God’s character – that is: God is half loving (nice) and half unloving (mean and punishing). A person takes on whichever half best fits into his pre-shaped life-views, or his religious affiliation. Or maybe one views God as nice (loving) one day – when you are good, but mean (righteous) the next – when you messed up. What a horrible life. That reminds me of pagan deities.

I now see God as 100% loving – all the time, even when he is just and righteous. Love never bi-pass law. God’s love offers the provision to live a victorious obedient life, not to pretend we are righteous when we are not.

He is righteous, so much so that sacrifice for sin had to be provided. He is loving, so much so that he provided that sacrifice Himself by giving His Son. This is why I refuse the governmental theory of atonement and hold fast to the penal-substitutionary theory of atonement.

I now realize that many Chrisitans were trusting in a fantasy – a self-delusion programmed into their minds like a mantra: “I am perfectly saved, I’m fine, I have no sin bondage (that’s not possible), I am justified (JUST AS if I were sinless), glory, halleluiah, I’m H-A-P-P-Y. and all the while legalism haunts them. Deep inside they know something is not right.... Blaaaah!

Christ died to set us FREE FROM sin, not so we could pretend we were free.
Christ came to fulfill the law by putting his law in our minds, give us new life, guide us by the Spirit, and transform us through our cooperation with him: follow the Spirit, seek him, etc...

Did you notice how often these truths get left out of discussions related to the Christian walk? I wonder why? I fear that many saints fail to communicate the full message in their zeal to Christian-ize and holy-ize people. And many, like me who counted on man to lead them on the straight and narrow, grab onto all the instructions and run the race with self-reliance…. till they fall into the ditch. (Praise God for ditches!)

Here’s my thought:
Without FAITH, we are going to mess up every single doctrine that exists. And we are going to misunderstand every single Bible story, and every single divine law.

And without faith we are going to miss the best that God has done in the past (ex via Finney), and the best that he is doing now.

Without faith we can’t see it because we are blind.

I think our counsel needs to be, "obey in that area the Holy Spirit is revealing". this is not to say we don't preach on sin, but I think we have to allow God to be God and the Great High Priest to do His job. Let Him call out the imperfections. Let Him do the pointing, etc. etc.

God can handle his children quite well! ... I believe.... I have faith!

Diane

"But false prophets also arose among the people, [i]just as there will also be false teachers among you[/i], [b]who will secretly introduce destructive heresies[/b], even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. [b]Many[/b] will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned" (2 Peter 2:1-2).

"Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you [b]appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints[/b]" (Jude 3).

"For we can do nothing against the truth, but only for the truth" (2 Corinthians 13:8). Truth cannot be destroyed, it cannot be proven false, and it is only to one's own destruction that such an attempt will lead (see 1 Peter 2:6-8).

When we engage in polemics (destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God with the Word of God - 2 Corinthians 10:4-5) and apologetics (giving a logical reason/defense for our faith - 1 Peter 3:15) the two are to line up for a faithful witness to the truth - "Every fact is to be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses" (2 Corinthians 13:1). Even in our interpretation of the Bible the Lord has given us immediate context, over-all context, and the Holy Spirit to establish His truth.

That being said, we should be able through the Word of God and logic to expose any lie or lofty speculation that is raised up against the knowledge of God. If what is proposed is truth then the Word of God and logic will prove it to be so. If what is proposed is falsehood (opposition to the truth) then the Word of God and logic will destroy it.

The Bible tells us that there are men who are "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith. But they will not make further progress; [i]for their folly[/i] (lack of understanding) [i]will be obvious to all[/i], just as Jannes' and Jambres' folly was also" (2 Timothy 3:7-9).

If what I have spoken in this thread is falsehood then it can and should be undone. If what I have spoken in this thread is truth then it cannot and will not be undone. There is no denying that Finney held to the "Governmental Theory of Atonement" which is a mixture of Pelagianism and Socinianism. The question now is: is that sound doctrine or heresy?

If it is sound doctrine then Finney was a hero. If it is strange doctrine then Finney was a heretic.

What will we do to come to the knowledge of the truth? Will we get into God's Word and see what He has to say or will we with our own prejudices ignore God's Word and opt for some method that can never determine truth? Will we see what God has to say or will we prop up our beliefs with what others had to say? Do I believe that Rick Warren is telling the truth because W. A. Criswell, or Billy Graham, or Adrian Rogers, or any other so-called pillar endorsed his teachings? Do I believe that Finney was telling the truth because J. E. Orr, or A. W. Tozer, or Leonard Ravenhill, or any other so-called pillar endorsed his teachings? I am not being derrogatory towards anyone esteemed as a pillar - see Galatians 2:6-10.

As thingsabove's signature says:

"Controversy for the sake of controversy is a sin, controversy for the sake of the truth is a divine command." Dr. Walter Martin, author, Kingdom of the Cults

Hi Olan,

Do I believe that Finney was telling the truth because J. E. Orr, or A. W. Tozer, or Leonard Ravenhill, or any other so-called pillar endorsed his teachings? I am not being derrogatory towards anyone esteemed as a pillar - see Galatians 2:6-10

Certainly God's word has to have the final say. The question then becomes, how far do we cast off folk that we believe to be wrong in their doctrine or conclusions? Is it possible to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good? Is it possible for a person to be 'wrong' and 'saved' at the same time? I think heretic is strong because there is a sinister feel to the word that carries over to the person. Personally, I think Unconditional Eternal Security is heresy, but I make way that the men who believe such things and teach such things are merely 'wrong'. I look at the fruits of their life as opposed to the precision of their doctrine. Is there a place to 'agree to disagree' in some areas? Do we need to take such a sharp stand when by all indicators these men seem to genuinely love God and desire to serve Him?

God Bless,

-Robert

Certainly God's word has to have the final say. The question then becomes, how far do we cast off folk that we believe to be wrong in their doctrine or conclusions? Is it possible to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good? Is it possible for a person to be 'wrong' and 'saved' at the same time? I think heretic is strong because there is a sinister feel to the word that carries over to the person. Personally, I think Unconditional Eternal Security is heresy, but I make way that the men who believe such things and teach such things are merely 'wrong'. I look at the fruits of their life as opposed to the precision of their doctrine. Is there a place to 'agree to disagree' in some areas? Do we need to take such a sharp stand when by all indicators these men seem to genuinely love God and desire to serve Him?

Yes, Robert, according to

Titus 1:12-14 (King James Version)

[b]12One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

13This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them [color=990000]sharply[/color], that they may be sound in the faith;

14Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.[/b]

The gospel alone saves, whenever and wherever It's preached along with the assent and empowerment of the Holy Spirit to bring upon salvation to anyone. Even from heretics' lips, when delivered with simplicity.

Similar to the new Jewish converts in Paul's days, troubled by the Judaizers, heretical doctrine cause no small stir in defying new converts soul and conscience, and thereby robbing their faith.

It's simply improper to give credit to man's works , to do that is to chiseling away God's glory altogether. GOD simply does not share HIS glory with anyone, not Finney,not Spurgeon,not Luther,not Calvin not Billy Graham. NOT anyone ! So why do people always have to get offended when their 'heros' are reproved or corrected for their errors or heresies?

Heresy brings false hope and false salvation to man. Messengers do not save people, Christ does. Salvation produced by a false message, brings out false faith, which brings no salvation at all. The glory behind anyone's salvation given to any messenger but Christ is offensive to God.

There is no room to agree of disagree with heretics, thats like saying while Hitler was evil,he helped an old lady cross the street!!??

No one must ever boast of messengers, ( Paul would NOT like that )or have the need to defend messengers, simply because all messengers were/are fallen men like ourselves. The message however, must be examined and corrected, not to prove our own 'rightness' but HIS rightness at all time and at all costs ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURES interpreted with right-division.

[b]2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.[/b]

Let's not forget, satan is the grandest, subtlest, slickest liar. Heretics writings have infiltrated the Christian communities for years and years, and reproduced in his followers.

Indeed God and God alone will judge him and each of us accordingly, meanwhile, we 'little' people in Christ ought to voice for Truth, as Paul said to Timothy

[b]2Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;[/b]

Hello brother Robert,

Certainly God's word has to have the final say. The question then becomes, how far do we cast off folk that we believe to be wrong in their doctrine or conclusions?

Is it possible to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good? Is it possible for a person to be 'wrong' and 'saved' at the same time?

I think heretic is strong because there is a sinister feel to the word that carries over to the person.

Personally, I think Unconditional Eternal Security is heresy, but I make way that the men who believe such things and teach such things are merely 'wrong'.

I look at the fruits of their life as opposed to the precision of their doctrine. Is there a place to 'agree to disagree' in some areas? Do we need to take such a sharp stand when by all indicators these men seem to genuinely love God and desire to serve Him?

I believe that what needs to be determined through the Word of God is whether or not the "Governmental Theory of Atonement" would be considered either heresy/truth in a fundamental doctrine at the heart of the Gospel or wrong/right in a non-fundamental doctrine. We do need to heed Jude's appeal and contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints (Jude 3).

Grace and peace
Olan

Hi Olan,

I agree with your apologetic, I just am a bit less willing to dismiss Finney and other G.O.G believers. I have had some sharp conversations with a few, but in the end I really believe they loved the Lord.

Do I believe there are many Arminians lost - yes! Do I believer there are many Calvinists lost - yes! Do I believe there are Arminians and Calvinists saved - yes!

But do you believe there are any G.O.G. folks that are saved? ;-)

I believe that what needs to be determined through the Word of God is whether or not the "Governmental Theory of Atonement" would be considered either heresy/truth in a fundamental doctrine at the heart of the Gospel or wrong/right in a non-fundamental doctrine.

For years I suppose I was a follower of Hendrick Hanegraaff (Bible Answer man). I came to love apologetics and have held some strong beliefs of my own. If a person did not fit in my little 'box' then I cast them off. I have really misjudged some people. In time I came to understand that there are many people who hold views that may be aberrational and still they are believers.

It may be surprising, but in studies of the Jews they often dismiss our version of the atonement as human sacrifice. So it is hard to say how uniform the understanding really was in the first century. Personally, I believe Finney was wrong as regards to the atonement and some other things. I have no intention on defending him in this area. As you will know many people in evangelical circles do not agree in the topic of propitiation and whether God is 'appeased', 'placated', or somethings else. So I am careful to listen and hold fast to that which is good.

One of the strong feelings I have had has been to believe the T.U.L.I.P contains serious error. I once entertained the notion that Calvin may have not been saved. Especially after the incident with Michael Servetus. But in time I had to realize that these were men and the times were different. So, I may believe unconditional election is false, but I can still reason and fellowship with those who hold the view. I could not understand how some would believe God decreed things that ultimately made Him the author of Sin. So to me when I hear Finney, I am hearing not a lot different of things in terms of my disagreements as I would Calvin. ;-) I offer them both the benefit of the doubt and try to glean what I can from them.

We have had some very good conversations along the lines of atonement and election in the thread [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=3883&post_id=26061&order=0&viewmode=flat&pid=0&forum=36#26061]did Jesus die for those in Hell? [/url] Ron Bailey has a wonderful piece called [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=1212&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Propitiation and the Red Heifer.[/url]

God Bless,

Robert

Hello brother Robert,

I just am a bit less willing to dismiss Finney and other G.O.G believers.

This is why salvation is so fragile in the G.O.G. system. The sinner is viewed as a prisoner pardoned under the condition that he/she never sin again. To sin is to forfeit pardon and come under the direct judgment of the Law as if one had never been pardoned to begin with.

Gov't of God:
Quote:

The fact of our intrinsic guilt remains, and must forever remain; and our forgiveness is just as much an act of sovereign mercy, as if Christ had never died for us.

You wrote:

If this is true then why would Christ need to die at all? I'm reminded of the brutal nature of the sacrifices of the Old Testament. The gallons and gallons of blood would be akin to working in a slaughter house. But it was not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats could take away sins. The fact remains, without the shedding of blood there is no remission.

Grace and peace
Olan

Finney reminds me of Gideon - a man whom God used mightily to deliver Israel.
Then afterwards Gideon really blew it. In fact, he led all Israel astray with faulty doctrine about theocracy (or maybe they led him astray). Rather than trusting God as their king they trusted something else: man, idols... Didn’t that practically negate the value of the remarkable deliverance?

Regardless, Gideon is included God’s “Hall of Faith” in Hebrews 11 (:32) Do we add Finney there too - that man mightily used to build the kingdom for a season, but then led many from trust in God to trust in self? Would God add him?

Sometimes God makes no sense! I'm sure I could have done a better job making that faith-hero list in Hebrews 11. ....

.....Come on now... I’ll bet I’m not the only one who thinks that way!

PS: Speaking about "seasons" - I wonder if God really only ever intended to use Gideon for a short season. It was the PEOPLE who wanted to extend the calling, and make him king.

Don't we still do that? God uses someone for a season, and then the admiring crowds, still enthralled with the blessing, try to prolong the calling....

So someone writes a great book, and the publishers try to keep him writing forever after that - even if he has no more revelation from God. So he ends up writing a lot of nothing - or he gets off track ... . But the people keep buying his books.

Maybe Finney overstayed his season. And ever since then his admirers keep on loving his doctrines, because it fits into their way of thinking.

Oh, how we want our heroes!!

(There is a caution here for all who want revival badly.)

Diane

Hi Olan,

Do you believe then that the G.O.G. system is a system of legalism - of keeping salvation by never sinning again? Is the G.O.G. system one that begins in the Spirit and then is perfected by the flesh?

This is a good question. And I think it is an important point to explore. The thought that comes to mind is, "You keep them the same way you won them." If you win them with questionable means you may well have to employ questionable means to keep them serving God. The message of Galatians, I think, is that we must begin in the Spirit, walk in the Spirit, and finish in the Spirit. If I build again the things that I have destroyed I make myself a transgressor. This can be true of 'legalisms' and it can be true of our former conversation. Flesh is flesh no matter if it is trying to climb up to God some other way or if it shows it's face in gross immorality.

I am not really sure why so many legalistic things were imposed in those days. It was not just Finney it was Wesley and others who tended to frown upon certain things that were, to me questionable and a matter of personal convictions. I think the difference with Finney is, he would preach folk under conviction for not praying regularly with the family or something. Many times you read the writings of some of these writers and they have strung together passages that say different things and make them say something stricter than their immediate context. I do not condone such a practice at all. Maybe it is because I am familiar with how cults get started.

Funny, it is a practice that reminds me of Joseph Smith. You probably have read some of his false works. His writings did the same thing. Take two passages and weld them together to say something stricter or stronger than what God said and do it in such a way as to 'sound' like scripture. Makes me want to look for a bon fire. ;-)

I always try to make way for liberty of conscience when I teach or preach or write. I always press the need for folk to respond to what God is saying to them in their heart. I don't preach hard on smoking and then ask the people what God is saying to them either (is that not brain washing?). Stick to the word of God and be cautious of forging your own 'sins' from so-called Christian principals, has been my approach. Point out things that can serve as weights and allow God to deal without pressing heavy on folk to conform to my standard. It is a strange thing. God will point at things in folks lives that I never even thought of. We have to let the Holy Spirit do the work. Having begun in the Spirit means that I allow the Holy Spirit to fill me and cleanse me as He points to things in my life. If I took the sum of all preachers convictions upon my back I had been crushed to the ground. Holiness is not living like a hermit on bread and water; it is allowing the Holy Spirit to form Christ in us, that the Truth that is in Jesus might become the Truth that is in us (Eph. 4:21).

God Bless,

-Robert

Hi Robert,

Funny, it is a practice that reminds me of Joseph Smith.

Realizing that a large portion of the professing church is holding to a form of godliness with no power is necessary for calling her to repentance and revival - even the lost know when we are all talk and no walk. The danger is in trying to bring the church into a state of repentance and revival through some other means than the true gospel. We are to stay true to the Person and work of Jesus Christ as revealed in God's Word.

For example: in our day one may very well believe that because many people are being led to "believe in Jesus" (and I mean in the fundamental sense that is in-line with orthodox facts of His Person), and yet their lives are not really much different than the average lost man, that the problem is one of discipleship. So there is an attempt to get people discipled. But the real problem for the majority has been improper application of those fundamental, orthodox, truths of the Person and work of Christ. It was man-centered instead of God-centered, meaning that the focus was on man's value and not God's value. Even John 3:16 doesn't tell me of my goodness; it tells me of His goodness. John 3:16 actually tells me of my badness by stating the truth that for me to be saved God had to give His only Son as a sacrifice in my place - His goodness is magnified against the backdrop of my badness.

If the application of the truths of the gospel has been turned "upside-down" then it is actually no gospel at all - just philosophical humanism as Paris Reidhead put it. So discipleship is not the answer for people who have come through a wide-gate false gospel of philosophical humanism - the wide-gate doesn't open up to the "narrow way" (discipleship). The answer would be to "shut" the wide-gate by clearly marking it "wide-gate" and open the "narrow-gate" which is the true gospel in its true application. The true gospel will put the old man to death and will not compromise to allow him entrance without it. But with it comes life - we are raised up to walk in newness of life (there is power in the true gospel) and that under the Lordship of Jesus (the narrow-way/discipleship).

So let's work together for repentance and revival according to God's prescribed method - His way is always right! Let's know the true gospel by contending earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints and then let us boldly proclaim it from the housetops.

Grace and peace
Olan

what is G.O.G.?, what is T.U.L.I.P.?

Hi Bart, all you need to know is this:

G.O.G. along with MAGOG will descend upon Israel from the north, and T.U.L.I.P. is a pretty flower bulb planted in the Spring.

(edit) - Sorry, I don't mean to sound irreverent on this thread, but this stuff is just so very dry and depressing. The title of this thread bears witness to the popularity it has gained! [b]Criticism.[/b] I seriously wonder what if the the title and topic had instead been, "Holiness and Obedience unto the Lord," if it would have been half as popular. It would probably be gone from the forum in a couple hours, never to return, with two or three comments to credit. I am not saying that a post needs to be commented on to ensure acceptability; but I [i]am[/i] saying that heresy hunts and spiritual Sannhedrin meetings seem to hold the greatest intrique and impassioned postings on these forums. This, I believe, is a symptom very worthy of notice and meditation.

Am I alone in noticing this?

Brother Paul

Can anyone be saved under a system of legalism with a sacrifice that need not have died at all?

I am not familiar enough with Finney to answer this question. What I mean is, he qualifies so much of his writings in other works that I don't know what he actually believed in the end along these lines. I also don't know how theologically correct in our understanding we have to be in order to be 'saved'. I know many people who would not have any clue even to the issues of what we are talking about. They simply know that they believe Christ died for us and rose again. How it plays out sacrificially they would likely not fully comprehend. If Finney were living and I had the chance I would certainly ask him. However, I think the problem begins here:

[i]3. It is no part of public justice that an innocent being should suffer penalty or punishment, in the proper sense of these terms. Punishment implies crime -- of which Christ had none. Christ, then, was not punished.

[u]Let it be distinctly understood that the divine law originates in God's benevolence, and has no other than benevolent ends in view. It was revealed only and solely to promote the greatest possible good, by means of obedience.[/u] Now, such a law can allow of pardon, provided an expression can be given which will equally secure obedience -- making an equal revelation of the law-giver's firmness, integrity, and love. The law being perfect, and being most essential to the good of His creatures, God must not set aside its penalty without some equivalent influence to induce obedience. [/i] (C.G.F)

Let's take the first underlined statement first; [u]Let it be distinctly understood that the divine law originates in God's benevolence, and has no other than benevolent ends in view. It was revealed only and solely to promote the greatest possible good, by means of obedience.[/u]

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. (Galatians 3:19)

But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. (Romans 7:8-11)

The Law served to expose the [u]S[/u]in that is in man prior to regeneration. the Law of God exposed the Law of Sin that was in our members. By the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified (ed.). Christ did not come to make bad men good, but to make dead men live (Ravenhill). Error begets error. If I don't rightly understand that the Law came that the offense may abound then I try to use the Law as did the Jews. Jesus went to great lengths to prove to the people that Sin reigned in their hearts and it was more than a matter of outward conformity to a code. Their hearts needed to be purified by faith. This happens as a supernatural act of God at regeneration. this is why I said at the beginning that I believe Finney tried to understand the word of God from the perspective of a person who was already born again. He was very big on things making sense to him. For example he writes:

[i]Thus far we may advance safely and on solid ground, by the simple light of nature. If there were no Bible, we might know so much with absolute certainty. So far, even infidels are compelled to go.[/i](C.G.F)

Here he believes that the reality of the atonement has to jibe with the light of nature. Even an infedel can understand it. If there were no bible, we would still be able to understand the cause of the Cross. I reject this notion on the grounds that I had not known Sin except the Law had said thou shalt not... If I have no sense of guilt then I have no compunction. If I have no compunction I fell no need for propitiation. It is human nature to want to right wrongs. If I hurt someone I feel compelled to make it up somehow (hence, "I'm sorry, how can I make it up to you?" etc.). This is natural experience.

[i]t is very common [u]for lawyers to reject the fact[/u], until they come to see the reasons and governmental bearings of the atonement; this seen, they usually admit the fact. [u]There is a large class of minds[/u] who need to see the governmental bearings, or they will reject the fact. The reason why the fact is so often doubted is, that the explanations given have been unsatisfactory. They have misrepresented God. No wonder men should reject them, and with them, the fact of any atonement at all.[/i] (C.G.F)

Here, again, Finney appeals to the natural understanding. I sometimes get the feeling he tried to make the scriptures 'make sense' to the natural man. In fairness he expresses his willingness to amend his beliefs as more light is shed on the subject. If God requires a correct understanding of the atonement in order to be saved the door comes open to a great many other questions.

The thing I think is worth noting is that a great many folk don't have a grasp of the essentials as we may wish they did. Some folk look to the scriptures as a means of enhancing their walk with God, while others look for more logical conclusions to be drawn from proof texts. I am huge on doctrine, but I also know a lot of people don't even understand the issues. They have a simple faith. They have a faith that keeps on believing even when they don't understand certain things. Not everyone knows how a brown cow eats green grass and produces white milk; but that does not hinder them with the glass.

God Bless,

-Robert

J-bird said:

Remember, Peter was also very unsound in his doctrine. He liked to mix law with grace. Paul had to rebuke him and straighten him out on one occasion. The funny thing is the bible does'nt say if he repented or not.

Of course Peter repented of his faulty thinking. Or surely his epistles would have been polluted! If he had refused to accept Paul’s exhortation (in Gal. 2:14) then his deliberate sin (not listening to Paul) would have kept him from hearing God clearly while he was writing scriptures.

We don’t need to hear the word “repent” for repentance to be happenning. Anyone can say, “I repent", or "He repented the other day.” So what! The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

I think Peter’s epistles ARE an proof of repentance. Consider his words:
“…for this reason add to your faith goodness….” etc.” 2 Pet. 1:5

Diane

Hi Olan,

So let's work together for repentance and revival according to God's prescribed method - His way is always right! Let's know the true gospel by contending earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints and then let us boldly proclaim it from the housetops.

I think this is also very true. I believe that what we need in our times are 'Gospel' preachers more than 'repentance' preachers. The label 'repentance preacher' screams [i]imbalance[/i]. It is not as if we can send in a 'repentance' preacher and then a 'justification' preacher and then a 'regeneration' preacher and an 'adoption' preacher, etc. etc. This pits each minister against the other one if you think about it. The guy preaching repentance gets rebuked by the justification minister and the justification minister is charged with easy believism or something.

The point I am making in defense of Finney and others who are aberrational in their beliefs is that God is able to save a person in spite of their wrong beliefs. That does not mean that we promote their wrong beliefs or allow them to take hold or be preached unthwarted. Yet I believe Finney had some good things to say that we can use in our overall understanding of salvation and revival. That does not mean I have to become a Finneyite and swallow the whole of his doctrine. Not everyone is comfortable with this line of thinking, but I think it can be done as long as we are careful Bereans and know what to spit out and what to swallow. Reason is, if I did not take that approach I would not read a great many teachers.

God Bless,

-Robert

Hi Paul,

Am I alone in noticing this?

I hope this is not turning into a circus. I hope that it can be edifying to someone who may have had concerns and were afriad to ask. Just trying to be sensitive and give well reasoned answers. :-)

God Bless,

-Robert

No, brother Robert.

This is not a circus; you are very respectul, I very much admire your posts, your knowledge, you sound Christian theology, and your position on Finney. I hold the same beliefs you do! I greatly admire Finney, and approach his works with respect and sincere meditation, though, openly, I can't say I agree 100% with some of his ideas. My frustration is not with you at all (I am coming to regret my post!); my frustration, rather, is with the trend of posts such as these that have such an alluring power, that swift judgments are often brought out against other saints. My problem is with men who see things in part, though claim to see in full. And these same men will not yield to reason and prayer before posting; the result, therefore, is a techinical goop of strung-together scripture intended to validate their stance. If someone is truly a heretic, fine! But heretic is a very ugly word; heretics are worthy of eternal death. I cannot accept that Charles Finney, a man who loved Jesus Christ and prayed for souls with more fervency and passion than most of us will probably [i]ever[/i] know, is destined to burn in hell - the very kingdom he so ruthlessly plundered and deprived hundreds of thousands of souls of. And that this tremendous brother is cursed to go there because some people here look through a dark glass and see that Finney had a different understanding of certain things than they have been taught...just boggles my mind and grieves my spirit. We should know better! This is not Calvin and Servetus circa 1550's. This is Christ-honoring Christians and Charles Finney, the lover and preacher and great soul-winner used by Jesus Christ. Those that point the finger and consign Finney to the flames of a deserved heretic, in love I ask what are you doing for the Lord with your astute theology? What are you doing with your proper understanding of the atonement?

I'm sorry. I never should have posted. I told myself not to get embroiled in this discussion. I'm not Finney's advocate. Who am I, after all! I just get a little zealous, and God's getting the chaff out. This is what happens when I get my eye off the Word of God and put it instead on an inconsequential Finney discussion. I get side-tracked and end up regretting my actions. Do forgive me, Robert.

Brother Paul

Hi Paul,

I get side-tracked and end up regretting my actions. Do forgive me, Robert!

No apology needed brother. I am not offended by your feelings or words. The challenge is for all of us to hear one another out and realize that we differ in our beliefs and how strongly we are willing to 'press' (earnestly contend) for those beliefs. I used to come into these forums with guns a blazing. These forums have really helped change my life to be more moderate in how I respond to folks. Those who have been around a a long time know what I mean. But, some of those with whom I so strongly disagreed I have come to greatly admire and love in the Lord. I can't explain it, but that I have been changed by entering into gentle and yet honest conversations with brothers and sisters in the Lord. I don't always say much because I don't have anything I feel of value to contribute.

I don't have all this figured out like I used to. ;-) I still love aologetics and revival studies. More than that I desire to walk with the Lord and rightly represent Him. I have learned to allow folk the liberty of conscience. We don't all agree on everything. We don't like to be wrong. Hopefully we are all willing to weigh matters out and respond with grace seasoned with salt.

God Bless,

-Robert

They even make a T-shirt for those who are less than enamored with Charles Finney. Look for yourself:

http://www.cafepress.com/centuri0n.80670848

Click on the "View Larger" for a better look

Hi Robert,

I also don't know how theologically correct in our understanding we have to be in order to be 'saved'. I know many people who would not have any clue even to the issues of what we are talking about. They simply know that they believe Christ died for us and rose again. How it plays out sacrificially they would likely not fully comprehend.

The point I am making in defense of Finney and others who are aberrational in their beliefs is that God is able to save a person in spite of their wrong beliefs. That does not mean that we promote their wrong beliefs or allow them to take hold or be preached unthwarted.

Please allow me a bit of testimony to this truth: I was saved in June of 1994 at the age of 31. I had worked in a supermarket since I was 16 years old. I was in a management position when I was saved (one that did not allow me much opportunity to be in church with God's people worshiping the Lord). In 1996 my sister who was 35 at the time was shot and killed by her husband who then shot and killed himself. I was really impressed upon by the Lord that life was too short to be tied up in a position that held me back from worship services. So when I came back to work after a few days I told our supervisor that I wanted to be de-moted (if that's a word) to the position of produce manager so that I could be in church on Sundays and prayer meetings on Wednesdays.

An opening came up just two weeks later (by non other than the hand of the Lord - my supervisor was a believer and he even saw that God had opened that door) at another store about 30 miles from my home and hometown. It was a college town (secular) and so I had some college kids working with me there. I always carried with me a small Bible in my shirt pocket and was continuously prompted by God to pull it out and share with others what God's Word had to say. This one college kid (early twenties) would come in after the week-ends and tell others about how "tore up he got" and other immoral activities he had been involved in.

After I had been there about 5 or 6 months he wanted to go home for two weeks during the summer to visit his family. He was part-time so he didn't get vacations. He was also my Sunday man (the one who set up the produce rack on Sundays). I allowed him the time off. He wanted to know what I was going to do about Sundays. I told him that I was going to work on Sundays while he was gone and not for him to worry because God knew that I had worked many Sundays after I was saved and that my heart was on Him and with His people.

This young man went home and after two weeks he came back and the first thing that he said to me was that he wanted to carry me out to lunch. I thought it was just to show his appreciation for allowing him to go home - but it wasn't! We went to a "Chick-Fillet" (not sure of its spelling) and ordered and sat down across from each other. I prayed and then when I looked up tears were streaming down his face. He said, "You won't ever know how much your pulling that Bible out of your pocket every day has impacted me. I have seen alot of people who say they are Christians but you are the first real one I have ever seen." My heart dropped to my stomach because of that statement and I wept for the condition of the church. Then he said, "I am now a saved man."

After weeping together and rejoicing together (in a public restaurant) I asked him how God saved him. He said, "While I was home my little sister did something wrong and was going to get a whipping. My little brother asked my mom to whip him instead. Mom asked him why he wanted to take his sister's whipping to which he replied, 'Because they have been teaching us in Vacation Bible School that that is what Jesus did for us and I want to show her what Jesus did for her.'" This broke his heart and brought him to repentance as he saw the goodness of the Lord and his own badness and that the Lord was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities (Isaiah 53:5).

A little child may not be able to define or pronounce "penal-substitutionary atonement" but they can make application and give clarification.

I do not believe that God saves through "wrong belief" or else there is no necessity of confessing (homologeo - speak the same thing about the Person and work of Christ that God says) that Jesus Christ is Lord and believing in your heart that God raised Him from the dead (Romans 10:9).

Grace and peace
Olan

Hi Paul,

My problem is with men who see things in part, though claim to see in full. And these same men will not yield to reason and prayer before posting; the result, therefore, is a techinical goop of strung-together scripture intended to validate their stance.

I very much admire your posts, your knowledge, you sound Christian theology, and your position on Finney. I hold the same beliefs you do!

My problem is with men who see things in part, though claim to see in full. And these same men will not yield to reason and prayer before posting; the result, therefore, is a techinical goop of strung-together scripture intended to validate their stance.

Grace and peace
Olan

Hi Olan,

I understand your analogy. My point is that Finney's understanding is not mine, but I am [i]not[/i] ready to believe that his belief was such that he could not be saved.

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (Romans 10:9)

I'm not sure that Finney's view is out of step with this particular passage.

Brother if you or anyone else will use polemics (2 Corinthains 10:3-5) and apologetics (1 Peter 3:15) to show me the error of my ways I will immediately repent and make restitution.

I am not sure that polemics would fit our case. We agree that Finney's view of the atonement was wrong (i would say aberrational). I am willing to look past his 'errors' and hold fast to what is good. Your view is that he is a heretic. I think also that my understanding of what Finney believed is not sufficient to label him such. I am willing to let God deal with him and at the same time shield myself from any potential errors or misunderstandings. He writes:

[i]The sacrifice made on Calvary is to be understood as God's offering to public justice--God himself giving up his Son to death, and this Son pouring forth his life's blood in expiation for sin--thus throwing open the folding gates of mercy to a sinning, lost race. This must be regarded as manifesting his love to sinners. This is God's ransom provided for them. Look at the state of the case. The supreme Law-Giver, and indeed the government of the universe, had been scouted by rebellion;--of course there can be no pardon till this dishonor done to God and his law is thoroughly washed away. This is done by God's free-will offering of his own Son for these great sins.

This being all done for you, sinners, what do you think of it? What do you think of that appeal which Paul writes and God makes through him--"I beseech you, therefore, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service." Think of those mercies. Think how Christ poured out his life for you. Suppose he were to appear in the midst of you to-day, and holding up his hands dripping with blood, should say--"I beseech you by the mercies shown you by God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God!" Would you not feel the force of his appeal that this is a "reasonable service?" Would not this love of Christ constrain you? What do you think of it? Did he die for all that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves but unto him that loved them and gave himself for them? What do you say? [u]Just as the uplifted ax would otherwise have fallen on your neck, he caught the blow on his own. You could have had no life if he had not died to save it;--then what will you do? Will you have this offered mercy, or reject it? Yield to him the life he has in such mercy spared, or refuse to yield it?[/u][/i] (C.G.F)

A little child may not be able to define or pronounce "penal-substitutionary atonement" but they can make application and give clarification.

I had another thought as we ponder the atonement issue. For those who have followed the criticisms of the Word of Faith movement you will recall that some have the belief that since we deserved Hell for our sins that Christ had to literally go to Hell to make propitiation for our sins. This is the opposite extreme, I think, of what we are looking at with Finney. One seems to 'undermine' the fulness of the sufferings of Christ for us and the other seems to amplify them. So the question becomes, what was the extent of His sufferings for us on the cross? What was the 'penalty' for sins? It is considered heretical to believe that Jesus went to Hell for our sins, so what is the extent to which He took our place?

Paul;

I am not saying that a post needs to be commented on to ensure acceptability; but I am saying that heresy hunts and spiritual Sannhedrin meetings seem to hold the greatest intrique and impassioned postings on these forums. This, I believe, is a symptom very worthy of notice and meditation.

Am I alone in noticing this?

No. It does happen often enough to warrent some serious consideration, not more defending. Believe it does show much more the inner workings than may be noticable while being caught up in the heat of the moment ... speaking from experience here.

Robert:

What I mean is, he qualifies so much of his writings in other works

A great and needed consideration...

Finney's words elsewhere, linked earlier;

The philosophical explanations of the reasons and governmental bearings of the atonement must not be confounded with the fact of an atonement. Men may be saved by the fact if they simply believe it, while they may know nothing about the philosophical explanation. The apostles did not make much account of the explanation, but they asserted the fact most earnestly, gave miracles as testimony to prove their authority from God, and so besought men to believe the fact and be saved. The fact, then, may be savingly believed, and yet the explanation be unknown. This has been the case, no doubt, with scores of thousands.

Perhaps a similar fitting comment from Gregs posting;

He changed evangelicalism's understanding of revival. The Edwardian idea that revival is "prayed down" was replaced by Finney's conviction that it is "worked up" (along the lines of mass evangelism). The former views God as the agent in salvation and the latter sees man as the instrument of his own spiritual birth.2
[u]To be sure, Finney's language is unguarded, and he unwittingly set himself up to be taken out of context.[/u] In the long run, it may not have been wise to make such a concise and terse statement without carefully qualifying it. But it must be remembered who he was arguing against. The most widely received notion of his day held that revival was a completely sovereign work of God and that Christians ought not to think that they can do anything to bring it to pass. Most of Finney's modern critics never mention this, nor explain how widespread this belief was.3 Christians everywhere held the false idea that they were to do nothing in promoting a revival. Therefore, they just sat idly by and hoped that God would sovereignly send one in His own good time. To "undeceive" them of this error, he had little choice but to make very strong statements to the contrary. Therefore, to simply quote this statement without explaining the theological ethos of the time leads to a distorted view of what he actually believed.

Still am finding a great difficulty in arriving at anything remotely tinged with an idea of heresy, it is quite outlandish, dangerous and ill advised. Disagree to your hearts content, but until you have studied out everything this man, used greatly of God has ever done, stated, spoken, absorbed it, lived it and fully understand it ... even then... Is not the point that there is some elevated opinion being expressed and the question not asked; Why?

Is there not far greater and true heresy's being perpetrated in abundance in [i]our[/i] day far more critical than a particular expression of the mechanisms of atonement that as Finney stated;

[i]The apostles did not make much account of the explanation, but they asserted the fact most earnestly, gave miracles as testimony to prove their authority from God
[/i] ...

If this must taken to it's fullest logical conclusion, then the revivals under Finney have an awful lot of explaing to do...

crsschk with Roberts quote:

What I mean is, he qualifies so much of his writings in other works

A great and needed consideration...

What I mean is, he qualifies so much of his writings in other works that I don't know what he actually believed in the end along these lines.

Finney:

3. Christ as our Advocate can not, and need not, plead a justification.

Finney:

7. He can not plead as our Advocate that He has paid our debt, in such a sense that He can demand our discharge on the ground of justice. He has not paid our debt in such a sense that we do not still owe it. He has not atoned for our sins in such a sense that we might not still be justly punished for them. Indeed, such a thing is impossible and absurd. One being can not suffer for another in such a sense as to remove the guilt of that other. He may suffer for another's guilt in such a sense that it will be safe to forgive the sinner, for whom the suffering has been endured; but the suffering of the substitute can never, in the least degree, diminish the intrinsic guilt of the criminal. Our Advocate may urge that He has borne such suffering for us to honor the law that we had dishonored, that now it is safe to extend mercy to us; but He never can demand our discharge on the ground that we do not deserve to be punished. The fact of our intrinsic guilt remains, and must forever remain; and our forgiveness is just as much an act of sovereign mercy, as if Christ had never died for us.

The Person and work of Christ is the very foundation of Christian faith. And if it is redefined and interpreted out of context and therefore contrary to its Biblical content, the whole message of the Gospel is radically altered and its saving value destroyed. This matter as to whether or not the Governmental Theory of Atonement is sound doctrine or heresy is of utmost importance. This is not about declaring Finney a heretic - the roots of this teaching go way back beyond him from Hugo Grotius to Pelagius. If it is true that it was unjust for Christ to suffer vicariously for sinners, the just for the unjust then Pelagius, Grotius, and Finney are right. If it was just for Christ to suffer vicariously for sinners, the just for the unjust then Pelagius, Grotius, and Finney are wrong - and this my friends is a matter at the heart of the gospel.

Grace and peace
Olan

Olan,

There is a far more important matter at issue here that seems to be alluding you, a lack of looking at the bigger picture for one. The other is the spirit of your contentions. Have far less a problem with men 'speaking out of both sides of their mouth' than the comment itself. "Smarmy" comes to mind.

If it is true that it was unjust for Christ to suffer vicariously for sinners, the just for the unjust

It is and was unjust, it should never have had to happen. That God went through it despite the fact ... Who's perspective is it that you really think Finney is arguing from? Tie yourself into theological pretzels all you wish but I don't think you have taken a well rounded listen to much of what has been offered here.

Hi Olan,

If it is true that it was unjust for Christ to suffer vicariously for sinners, the just for the unjust then Pelagius, Grotius, and Finney are right.

As I read and re-read Finney's work I am continually met with the question, "Did Christ suffer the full extent of suffering that we deserved individually and therefore the sum total of the penalty of the sins of all mankind"? Or Did He die on the cross as the price paid to remove the offense in such a way that His life, being [i]invaluable[/i] was offered as the price for our sins. We could not pay the price because we were the offenders; but Christ could pay the price to remove the offense by the giving of His life. Was it the physical suffering as depicted by Mel Gibson that was sufficient punishment for all the sins of mankind from Cain till now or was there something else involved? Did the physical pain pay the price? Did the loss of physical life pay the price? Did the moment in time captured in eternity when He fulfilled Psalm 22 (Eli Eli lama sabachthani) while still on the Cross pay the price? Did, after He declared "IT IS FINISHED" He yield up the ghost and descend into hell for 3 (+ -) days to suffer in the flames and torments of devils? What was the nature and extent of His suffering?

It seems to me that Finney is saying it would be impossible for our Lord to have suffered the cumulative penalty deserved for every sin ever committed. [i]Did[/i] our Lord receive a just recompense of reward for every transgression and disobedience [u]ever committed[/u] in the lashings (39 save 1) and upon the cross? I have long contended with the W.O.F. folks that is was in no wise necessary for Christ to have 'gone to Hell' for my sins as the [i]value[/i] of His life was infinite. He having suffered as a sinner upon the cross and in fulfilment of Psalm 22 was sufficient. The actual extent of His sufferings are a mystery, but the cover is lifted a bit in the Psalm. However it played out, once He declared it was finished, it was finished. Did He suffer a 'separation' from God in some mysterious way in that moment of time thereby paying the real penalty for sin? Death is [i]separation[/i], when Adam sinned He was separated from God immediately as compared to his former communion. This propitiation made expiation legally possible, that God might be both [i]just and the justifier of them...[/i]. This was not sleight of hand.

I have said before that for anyone who has ever know the fellowship and communion with God that the loss of that communion [u]is[/u] Hell. The flames, the torments, the devils, the screams, the falling for eternity, and on and on [u]pale[/u] in comparison to the reality that God is [i]not there[/i]. Thy Holy spirit has been taken from me and I have been cast away from His presence- this is [u]Hell[/u] (Psalm 51). THIS is what I deserve when I sin against God. THIS is the penalty for sins. All other forms of torture are a [i]footnote[/i] compared to the reality of being separated from God. And upon the cross we hear of little complainings. As the stripes were laid upon his back and the flesh exposed there is little record of any distressful cries... but at that moment in time... words the echos in my ears as if a thousand megaphones had roared the cry... [i]Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani.[/i]

We can applaud Mel Gibson I suppose for trying to capture the physical sufferings of our Lord upon the tree. But film fails miserably to declare the real extent of the penalty for sin. It IS and has always been [i]separation[/i] from God. In the day you eat of that Tree you shall surely DIE. Now, some will call me a heretic. Perhaps some will call their local service provider or start a blog declaring my heresy and me a heretic. But before any of us cast any stones I think it certain that we have no idea the real extent to which our Lord suffered. What I need to know is that if every transgression and disobedience that I have ever committed receives a just recompense and reward, surely I will not escape if I neglect [i]so great salvation[/i]. Blessed is the man whose sins have been [i]carried away[/i].

In closing I am reminded of the propitian that Hebrews spoke of to which [i]we cannot now speak particularly[/i]. You know it, as the [i]mercy seat[/i]. Perhaps that portion of the Ark had been lost or put away and none remained that could describe it in its particulars. Are we any better today? We can try to describe the Mercy Seat, but what we know is it is the place in which the price was paid to remove the offense that existed between man and God. It was an infinite price. It was the [i]precious blood of Christ as of a Lamb without spot and without blemish[/i]. It speaketh better things than that of Abel.

NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD
1876

What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
What can make me whole again?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Refrain

Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

For my pardon, this I see,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
For my cleansing this my plea,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Refrain

Nothing can for sin atone,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
Naught of good that I have done,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Refrain

This is all my hope and peace,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
This is all my righteousness,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Refrain

Now by this I’ll overcome—
Nothing but the blood of Jesus,
Now by this I’ll reach my home—
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Refrain

Glory! Glory! This I sing—
Nothing but the blood of Jesus,
All my praise for this I bring—
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Refrain

How can one contend for the Truth with out the spirit of contention? (the godly kind) :) From Paul to Luther..to.. , contended for Truth with likekind spirit. Think of my biggest hero, Luther, (yeah, I have a couple of those too), these are all men of contention. When I followed this thread, which I participated a little bit, I can appreciate a few of the brothers here contending for Christ's Work, while a few contend for Finney's works.

For sure, the more one loves Christ, the more intense one will become in apologetics and polemics, in the attempt to restore the Truth.
I contended for the honor of Christ's name once, and was reproved, and it was rather strange, that was the first time I didn't feel fear, praise God, I know God has been using SI to chisel fear out of me a lot. ( I'm sort of a big mouse in these things). I understand what Olan was saying in regard to speaking from both sides of the mouth, because I did that a lot, so that I won't sound offensive, so that I won't look bad, so that I won't be hated, so that I, I , I, I.....

I don't know any of you really, except through my tiny computer screen and in spirit, but I appreciate it whenever someone takes the time to defend the Truth at the cost of being reproved, rebuked and mocked.

My 'heros' of the past, are such as Mueller, Whitefield, the Puritan writers, Luther, Calvin..should anyone bring to my attention of their errors with the prove of of Scripture, I'd definitely say to that person "right on, brother, right on" and praise God. Besides, most of these heroic figures or "spiritual fathers" were mere sinners (some saved, some probably not)like ourselves, why defend their errors,[i] whether their errors are found in the entirety of their works or spread out in subtilty of bits and pieces?[/i]

Please remind ourselves, ALL human beings err, the more they write, the more mistakes they make, however, heresies come with satanic instruction, I do believe and must be refuted and denounced.

GOD told us to study [i]HIS WORD,[/i] not man' words, this perhaps is why Christendom is such a mess ! People spend more time reading man's words than God's Word.

Hi Mamaluk,

Please remind ourselves, ALL human beings err, the more they write, the more mistakes they make, however, heresies come with satanic instruction, I do believe and must be refuted and denounced.

I agree. I think we all would also agree that we need to stand for truth. I don't like to use the saying, but I almost have to here, we just can't afford to "throw the baby out with the bath water." I am thankful for Luther also. Yet, I have to disagree with his position on things like the book of James [i]not[/i] being canonical. Or his tractate [i]On the Jews and their lies[/i] which arguably was antisemetic. And this grace is the same grace I wish to extend to Finney and others. You don't have to look long to find error sometimes. But can we give grace to those with whom we disagree and yet still take our stands on Truth? Imagine if I were to put up a thread 'Luther Criticism' or 'Calvin Criticism' or 'Wesley Criticism'. Those who are really familiar with their works will have points of disagreement. Just some topics that come to mind we have discussed at length here on SI over the last few years: Monergism, synergism, Calvinism, Arminianism, Pelagianism, baptism, Puritainism, Pentecostalism, infralapsarianism, supralapsarianism, and many other 'isms'. ;-)

There was a good article shared here a few weeks ago called [url=http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/DealWithThoseWhoDiffer.htm]Dealing With Those Who Differ From Us. It was written from a Puritain perspective. [/url] I hope all would give it a read.

God Bless,

-Robert

Mike,

I regret my spirit of contention. I wish there was a way to "guard the doctrine", to "contend earnestly for the faith", to "destroy speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God", to "take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ", without appearing contentious. I'm puzzled by your comment:

The other is the spirit of your contentions. Have far less a problem with men 'speaking out of both sides of their mouth' than the comment itself.

What I mean is, he qualifies so much of his writings in other works that I don't know what he actually believed in the end along these lines.

Disagree to your hearts content, but until you have studied out everything this man, used greatly of God has ever done, stated, spoken, absorbed it, lived it and fully understand it ...

It is and was unjust, it should never have had to happen. That God went through it despite the fact ... Who's perspective is it that you really think Finney is arguing from? Tie yourself into theological pretzels all you wish but I don't think you have taken a well rounded listen to much of what has been offered here.

Robert: Thanks for the genuine attempt to look at some of the issues surrounding the legitimacy/illegitimacy of various theories of the atonement.

SI and friends: Please forgive any appearances or actualities of rudeness on my part. Not once have I been angered or offended through any of this nor have I intended to be rude or contemptuous. Let us all put on the full armor of God, so that we will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.

Grace and peace
Olan

RobertW,

WHAT? Luther erred ? NO WAY !! :) :)

I understand the 'grace' you or others attempted to extend to Finney, let's extend the same grace to brother Olan and to each other always, even though we/they didn't write as much or preach to as many as Finney.

Somedays, I wish there were no books written on doctrinces at all,(as if the Holy Spirit will come short in teaching the Truth seekers byHimself!!), except those biographies or inspirational. As for doctrine, one has barely time to labor in the Scripture..

Dealing with those.....nah, I'm done, I don't deal with ....no time, busy dealing with my wretched self !

Olan

SI and friends: Please forgive any appearances or actualities of rudeness on my part. Not once have I been angered or offended through any of this nor have I intended to be rude or contemptuous. Let us all put on the full armor of God, so that we will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.

Brother Olan, no you have not once indeed !
Thank you so much, sorry to override your post (by accident) Edit

Hi Olan,

Robert: Thanks for the genuine attempt to look at some of the issues surrounding the legitimacy/illegitimacy of various theories of the atonement.

It is a deep subject indeed. Finney had a way of saying a lot of things that were his way of saying them. They don't always sound like we are in agreement, but when things get boiled down they don't seem to be as off as at first. So in no way would I begin to place Finney in the camp with many other cults though I mentioned Joseph Smith to make a point. Mainly because I live in the shadow of the RLDS church in Indep. MO. They have tried to move towards orthodoxy but still yet CRI brands them a cult. I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I have to say that sometimes folk are not going to meet a certain standard. My apologies for the confusion.

God Bless,

-Robert

Hi Olan,

here is a coming counterfeit revival and if we don't learn to spot its proponents and warn others against it then can we truly say that we are lovers of the truth? Here's a booklet on the coming counterfeit revival http://www.devcobaptist.org/templates/System/details.asp?id=31831&PID=386851

I took some time to read the article and don't really believe Finney could possibly fit that model. I know of no other minister who preached as strongly and powerfully against sin. He was holiness to the core. His desire was that folk would turn to God with all their hearts and resolve any controversies they had with Him. His message "God Cannot Please Sinners" is one of the most eye opening pieces I have ever read against false ministering. Another consideration is that Paris Reidhead held a unique view of Original Sin also. So ministers that would be on board with you view of a coming apostacy resulting from man-centered ministry is not a lot different than their preaching against selfishness and humanism; they just didn't pull in the eschatological portions.

God Bless,

Robert

Hi Robert,

I took some time to read the article and don't really believe Finney could possibly fit that model.

I was saved in 1994. February 2, 1998 I was in attendance at the Annual Pastor's Conference at First Baptist Jacksonville Florida at the invitation of my pastor. Warren Wiersbe preached that morning on [i]Four Wonderful Discoveries For Leaders[/i]. During that message the Holy Spirit of God was dealing powerfully in my heart and He said to me that morning, "Do you want to be a popular preacher or my spokesman?" I answered the Lord right there and then and told Him that I wanted to be His spokesman. I didn't have enough sense at the time to realize that the Lord had called me into the ministry. I didn't fully answer that call until 2001. However, everything the Lord promised me that morning He has been 100% faithful to. God has not called me to deal in shadowy shades of grey (not insinuating that you do) but to deal in black and white. For me an attack on the "Penal-Substitutionary Atonement" is an attack on the work of Christ which is at the heart of the Gospel. If I do not defend it (the true Gospel), then I will not be God's spokesman, although I might would become immensely popular. God knows that I am willing to live as a prophet and die as a prophet for the sake of His glory and His elect. It is not so much error that makes men mad - it is TRUTH!

Grace and peace
Olan

Hi Olan,

God has not called me to deal in shadowy shades of grey (not insinuating that you do) but to deal in black and white. For me an attack on the "Penal-Substitutionary Atonement" is an attack on the work of Christ which is at the heart of the Gospel. If I do not defend it (the true Gospel), then I will not be God's spokesman, although I might would become immensely popular. God knows that I am willing to live as a prophet and die as a prophet for the sake of His glory and His elect. It is not so much error that makes men mad - it is TRUTH!

For me perhaps the most troubling thing I see and hear all around repentance circles is that a great many folk have this idea, almost a pre-occupation with being 'unpopular'. It is important to note that Prophets were unpopular because they were the Oracle of God. You are not alone in your quest for 'black and white'- there are a great many men and women that are taking this line. The thing is, everyone has their own interpretation of what the black and white actually is. There are a host that refuse to 'back down' (as some would call it) and they are suffering rejection and unpopularity for sure. But I am not convinced that God is not wanting to use us as a voice in many cases right where we are. To endure the unpopularity and rejection may be part of the process. However, its like there is a group of radical believers feeling the mantle of 'prophet' upon them with sword in hand and many are on the brink of slicing and dicing each other. They often don't get along among themselves because they REFUSE to give an inch. Just what I've been seeing happen over the last few years. the results? A whole lot of 'lone ranger' prophetic types that are in danger of spinning their wheels. I sometimes wonder if we don't have a dose of stubbornness and we are mistaking that for resolve or 'no compromise'. Just being honest. Love is the bond of perfection. the Fruit of the Spirit have to be in order in all that we do. There is no such thing as a Prophet that does not yield the Fruits of the Spirit. We need to be mindful that we do not misinterpret and in-turn MISS what God is wanting to do through us.

God Bless,

-Robert

Hi everyone.

Hi RobertW

What was the 'penalty' for sins? It is considered heretical to believe that Jesus went to Hell for our sins, so what is the extent to which He took our place?

I don't want to distract from the topic but I wanted to share some verse refrences in relation to this question that you posed. Maybe we can talk over them in messages or in another thread.

The refrences are Matthew 22:13, Matthew 27:45, Hebrews 13:11-14 and Revelation 22:14-15.

Take care for now and peace be with you.

Hi Robert,

For me perhaps the most troubling thing I see and hear all around repentance circles is that a great many folk have this idea, almost a pre-occupation with being 'unpopular'.

Grace and peace
Olan

Hi Olan,

I regret my spirit of contention.

Do you mean that you don't mind the fact that Finney spoke out of both sides of his mouth as long as someone doesn't comment on it? Have you noticed that while I may be contending for truth I have not been contemptuous? Even my
comment of Finney's speaking out of both sides of his mouth wasn't contemptuous - it was only to point out the truth that reading all of Finney's
work is unecessary:

A little ironic no? :-)

Brother, it [i]sounded[/i] that way originally and this isn't to go on to the ridiculous and may have misunderstood your intentions.

Do I have to study out everything that Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, Mary Baker Eddy, Herbert W. Armstrong, Jim Jones, or
Muhammed has ever done, stated, or spoken to know that they are false prophets? Do I have to study out everything that a true prophet has ever done,
stated, or spoken to know that he is a true prophet? No!

That wasn't the point Olan, would you put Finney in the same category as these? It was an overstatement to be sure, perhaps I should have
asked; Have you really read much of Finney? Or is this something you picked up on by others comments regarding him? That is the reason I asked, it seems there is exactly that which Robert mentioned about throwing the baby out with the bath water ...

Mike, if it were unjust for God to allow His Son (THE JUST) to die in the place of us sinners (THE UNJUST) so that He could be JUST and
the JUSTIFIER of the one who has faith in Jesus then He did it in an unjust manner. This is my whole point of contending for the truth in this
matter - [b]Finney was not arguing from God's perspective, he was arguing from Finney's perspective.[/b]

What I have been taking this all as is that Finney's perspective is the issue is with [b]US[/b], [i]our[/i] perspective, [i]we[/i] are the
unjust, the undeserving... NOT that God was 'unjust', that we, the whole of the human race that He Himself created, of the same substance that He had already destroyed in the flood... perhaps it could be put rather crassly 'forced His hand' to do... That sounds just as repugnant and presumptuous as the thought that it could be even true. That's very poor for an analogy ...

What is it that God [u]owes[/u] us?
An explanation?
A reason?
"Proof"?
Justice?

Got to admit this easily gets quite confusing, seems there is something very telling and remarkable if we could just grab ahold of it, it is evading me ...

Olan, the above are trailing thoughts left over from yesterday and they are surely disconnected at that...

Have some questions and even a few clarifications as well, the questions are without assumption and this is not purposed to set out a defense necessarily for Charles Finney.

Have you read through Finney's Systematic Theology?

And that unbiased by what others might have said?

Do you have any scholarly understanding of all this?

To answer these questions personally, I don't have this, have read parts and try very much to keep an unbiased understanding to mix up the order of answers.

Think much of this goes far beyond the surface and is generally my particular ... persuasion, to ask and dig down into the things that make us tick. Considering and re-thinking... Found it interesting how even the subject matter at hand can be taken differently even between the two of us. My impression straight off that Finney was making the case for ... [i]responsibility[/i] of the humans, not in any way making the case that what was done on the cross was incomplete or that there is some sort of perverted justice from Gods standpoint ... Can I be frank and state the whole "penal substitution atonement" sounds like a technical ascription to a rather devastating and profound spiritual truth? In other words it has a ring of the 'high-brow' professor ... I digress, the same I am sure could be leveled at the explanations expressed by Finney and others...

Came through similar paths of apologetics as mentioned by Robert earlier. A lot of it very helpful, challenging, especially coming out from the confusion of much of the spurious things going on this day. And as the pendulum often swings too far to one end became quite enamored with the 'fundamentals' to the point where it was just an aping of their thought's (That sense of "They were right about_____ " so the assumption goes to tracking without study or checking against scripture and thinking about anything they have to say, that bandwagon approach ...)

If there is any great point to all of this it is just to be wary of assumptions, wherever they are coming from. In Finney's case, think it is far too easy to write him off in such a way that some have attempted and I think again, this goes beyond the man himself but to questions of ourselves ... on the order of '[i]darkening counsel without knowledge[/i]'.

Have a couple of excerpts to share that might challenge even more some of the assumptions about
Mr. Finney.

[i]This may be a bit long, but believe it is helpful to the discussion[/i] ...

PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR
1. To a great extent, the truths of the blessed gospel have been hidden
under a false philosophy. In my early inquiries on the subject of religion, I
found myself wholly unable to understand either the oral or written
instructions of uninspired religious teachers. They seemed to me to resolve
all religion into states either of the intellect or of the sensibility, which my
consciousness assured me were wholly passive or involuntary. When I
sought for definitions and explanations, I felt assured that they did not well
understand themselves. I was struck with the fact that they so seldom
defined, even to themselves, their own positions. Among the words of
most frequent use, I could find scarcely a single term intelligibly defined. I
inquired in what sense the terms “regeneration,” “faith,” “repentance,”
“love,” etc., were used, but could obtain no answer, at which it did not
appear to me that both reason and revelation revolted. The doctrines of a
nature, sinful per se, of a necessitated will, of inability, and of physical
regeneration, and physical Divine influence in regeneration, with their
kindred and resulting dogmas, embarrassed and even confounded me at
every step. I often said to myself, “If these things are really taught in the
Bible, I must be an infidel.” But the more I read my Bible, the more clearly
I saw that these things were not found there upon any fair principles of
interpretation, such as would be admitted in a court of justice. I could not
but perceive that the true idea of moral government had no place in the
theology of the church; and, on the contrary, that underlying the whole
system were the assumptions that all government was physical, as opposed
to moral, and that sin and holiness are rather natural attributes, than moral,
voluntary acts. These errors were not stated in words, but I could not fail
to see that they were assumed. The distinction between original and actual
sin, and the utter absence of a distinction between physical and moral
depravity, embarrassed me. Indeed, I was satisfied either that I must be an
infidel, or that these were errors that had no place in the Bible. I was often
warned against reasoning and leaning to my own understanding. I found
that the discriminating teachers of religion were driven to confess that they
could not establish the logical consistency of their system, and that they
were obliged to shut their eyes and believe, when revelation seemed to
conflict with the affirmations of reason. But this course I could not take. I
found, or thought I found, nearly all the doctrines of Christianity
5
embarrassed by the assumptions above named. But the Spirit of God
conducted me through the darkness, and delivered me from the labyrinth
and fog of a false philosophy, and set my feet upon the rock of truth, as I
trust. But to this day I meet with those who seem to me to be in much
confusion upon most of the practical doctrines of Christianity. They will
admit, that sin and holiness must be voluntary, and yet speak of
regeneration as consisting in anything but a voluntary change, and of
Divine influence in regeneration, as anything but moral or persuasive. They
seem not at all aware of what must follow from, and be implied in, the
admission of the existence of moral government, and that sin and holiness
must be free and voluntary acts and states of mind. In this work I have
endeavored to define the terms used by Christian divines, and the doctrines
of Christianity, as I understand them, and to push to their logical
consequences the cardinal admissions of the more recent and standard
theological writers. Especially do I urge, to their logical consequences, the
two admissions that the will is free, and that sin and holiness are voluntary
acts of mind. I will not presume that I have satisfied others upon the points
I have discussed, but I have succeeded at least in satisfying myself. I regard
the assertion, that the doctrines of theology cannot preserve a logical
consistency throughout, as both dangerous and ridiculous.
2. My principal design in publishing Systematic Theology at first, was to
furnish my pupils with a class or textbook, wherein many points and
questions were discussed of great practical importance, but which have
not, to my knowledge, been discussed in any system of theological
instruction extant. I also hoped to benefit other studious and pious minds.
3. I have written for those who are willing to take the trouble of thinking
and of forming opinions of their own on theological questions. It has been
no part of my aim to spare my pupils or any one else the trouble of intense
thought. Had I desired to do so, the subjects discussed would have
rendered such an attempt abortive.
4. There are many questions of great practical importance, and questions in
which multitudes are taking a deep interest at present, that cannot be
intelligently settled without instituting fundamental inquiries involving the
discussion of those questions that lie at the foundation of morality and
religion.
5. Most of the subjects of dispute among Christians at the present day are
founded in misconceptions upon the subjects discussed in the volume. If I
6
have succeeded in settling the questions which I have discussed, we shall
see, that in a future volume most of the subjects of disagreement among
Christians at the present day can be satisfactorily adjusted with
comparative ease.
6. What I have said on “Moral Law” and on the “Foundation of Moral
Obligation” is the key to the whole subject. Whoever masters and
understands these can readily understand all the rest. But he who will not
possess himself of my meaning upon these subjects, will not understand the
rest.
7. Let no one despair in commencing the book, nor stumble at the
definitions, thinking that he can never understand so abstruse a subject.
Remember that what follows is an expansion and an explanation by way of
application, of what you find so condensed in the first pages of the book.
My brother, sister, friend: read, study, think, and read again. You were
made to think. It will do you good to think; to develop your powers by
study. God designed that religion should require thought, intense thought,
and should thoroughly develop our powers of thought. The Bible itself is
written in a style so condensed as to require much intense study. I do not
pretend to so explain theology as to dispense with the labor of thinking. I
have no ability and no wish to do so.
8. If any of my brethren think to convince me of error, they must first
understand me, and show that they have read the book through, and that
they understand it, and are candidly inquiring after truth and not “striving
for masteries.” If my brother is inquiring after truth, I will, by the grace of
God, “hear with both ears, and then judge.” But I will not promise to
attend to all that cavilers may say, nor to notice what those impertinent
talkers and writers may say or write who must have controversy. But to all
honest inquirers after truth I would say, Hail, my brother! Let us be
thorough. Truth shall do us good.
9. It will be seen that the present volume contains only a part of a course of
Systematic Theology. Should the entire course ever appear before the
public, one volume will precede, and another succeed the present one. I
published this volume first, because it contains all the points upon which I
have been supposed to differ from the commonly received views. As a
teacher of theology, I thought it due to the church and to the world, to give
them my views upon those points upon which I had been accused of
departing from the common opinions of Christians.
7
10. I have not yet been able to stereotype my theological views, and have
ceased to expect ever to do so. The idea is preposterous. None but an
omniscient mind can continue to maintain a precise identity of views and
opinions. Finite minds, unless they are asleep or stultified by prejudice,
must advance in knowledge. The discovery of new truth will modify old
views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite
minds in any world. True Christian consistency does not consist in
stereotyping our opinions and views, and in refusing to make any
improvement lest we should be guilty of change, but it consists in holding
our minds open to receive the rays of truth from every quarter and in
changing our views and language and practice as often and as fast, as we
can obtain further information. I call this Christian consistency, because
this course alone accords with a Christian profession. A Christian
profession implies the profession of candor and of a disposition to know
and obey all truth. It must follow, that Christian consistency implies
continued investigation and change of views and practice corresponding
with increasing knowledge. No Christian, therefore, and no theologian
should be afraid to change his views, his language, or his practices in
conformity with increasing light. The prevalence of such a fear would keep
the world, at best, at a perpetual standstill, on all subjects of science, and
consequently all improvements would be precluded.
Every uninspired attempt to frame for the church an authoritative standard
of opinion which shall be regarded as an unquestionable exposition of the
word of God, is not only impious in itself, but it is also a tacit assumption
of the fundamental dogma of Papacy. The Assembly of Divines did more
than to assume the necessity of a Pope to give law to the opinions of men;
they assumed to create an immortal one, or rather to embalm their own
creed, and preserve it as the Pope of all generations; or it is more just to
say, that those who have adopted that confession of faith and catechism as
an authoritative standard of doctrine, have absurdly adopted the most
obnoxious principle of Popery, and elevated their confession and catechism
to the Papal throne and into the place of the Holy Ghost. That the
instrument framed by that assembly should in the nineteenth century be
recognized as the standard of the church, or of an intelligent branch of it, is
not only amazing, but I must say that it is most ridiculous. It is as absurd in
theology as it would be in any other branch of science, and as injurious and
stultifying as it is absurd and ridiculous. It is better to have a living than a
dead Pope. If we must have an authoritative expounder of the word of
8
God, let us have a living one, so as not to preclude the hope of
improvement. “A living dog is better than a dead lion” (Ecclesiastes
9:4), so a living Pope is better than a dead and stereotyped confession of
faith, that holds all men bound to subscribe to its unalterable dogmas and
its unvarying terminology.
11. I hold myself sacredly bound, not to defend these positions at all
events, but on the contrary, to subject every one of them to the most
thorough discussion, and to hold and treat them as I would the opinions of
any one else; that is, if upon further discussion and investigation I see no
cause to change, I hold them fast; but if I can see a flaw in any one of them,
I shall amend or wholly reject it, as further light shall demand. Should I
refuse or fail to do this, I should need to blush for my folly and
inconsistency, for I say again, that true Christian consistency implies
progress in knowledge and holiness, and such changes in theory and in
practice as are demanded by increasing light.
On the strictly fundamental questions in theology, my views have not, for
many years, undergone any change, except as I have clearer apprehensions
of them than formerly, and should now state some of them, perhaps, in
some measure, differently from what I should then have done.
THE AUTHOR

Olan's:

There is a coming counterfeit revival and if we don't learn to spot its proponents and warn others against it then can we truly say that we are lovers of the truth?

It is interesting to note that Hank Hanegraff seems to hold the position that Christ did NOT suffer separation from God on the cross while my research shows that almost every well known theologian I can find hold the traditional view of the Dereliction. I found this quote from R.C. Sproul on "The Cross of Christ":

[b]On the cross, Christ becomes a curse for us -- all the covenantal sanctions are passed to Him (cf. Galatians 3:8-13).
1. Literally, Christ was driven outside the camp. He was delivered to the Gentiles for judgment. He was killed by death on a cross, a Roman means of execution, not Jewish. He was crucified outside Jerusalem.
2. Christ was forsaken by the Father when He took on the sins of the world. He was completely and utterly cut-off. He suffered hell on the cross.[/b]

I found another quote taken from the same audio series, [i]"Let me say this, if Jesus was not really forsaken on the cross you are still in your sins. You have no redemption. You have no salvation. Because the whole point of the of the cross is that if Jesus is going to bear our sins and bear the sanctions of the covenant." [/i]

My point in bringing this out is that Hank H. has labeled folk who hold the opposite view with some strong sayings. This has filtered into our organization on the Bible College level because of fear of being numbered with the Word Of Faith movement apparently. We have had our ministers WARNED not to teach that Christ suffered the separation from the Father on the Cross. I have a strong suspicion that it originated with CRI. And if he is promoting his abberational view and is the main proponent of the concept of a 'Counterfeit Revival' then we have to ask ourselves who is the authority here? If Finney's view is unorthodox so is Hank's. Now we have the pot calling the kettle black (as we say).

God Bless,

-Robert

Hi brother Mike. A little bit back you had mentioned the qoute that we have been discussing here...

The [u]fact[/u] of our intrinsic guilt remains, and must forever remain; and our forgiveness is just as much an act of sovereign mercy, [u]as if[/u] Christ had never died for us."

I think I can see the point you are getting at in underlining it the way you did and I think it is possible that was the emphasis. It is still troubling to me.

Brother, as you said, who could doubt that our forgiveness is an act of Sovereign mercy!

But...

As I understand it, that mercy [u]originated[/u] and I would think is [u]sustained[/u] in God's foreordained, sovereign decree [b]to save[/b], that is, [b]before[/b] even the world began, by means of satisfying the demands of His own justice by the gift His Son. For instance, the Apostle says of our redemption in Christ, that He was

[b][color=000000] ...foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,[/color][/b]

As I read these passages I got the impression that Finney objected to God forgiving us our sins(as a matter of justice) and this is exactly what troubles me. It seems like one would always be open to suffering the wrath of God for thier sins.

If that is true, how can we have confidence when Christ says

"[b][color=660033] Verily, verily, I say unto you, 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.[/color][/b]"

Brothers, I think back just now to the covenant that God made with Abraham and how He showed him that He would be faithfull to fulfill it.

[b][color=000000]And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.[/color][/b]

and...

[b][color=000000]And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.[/color][/b]

Well, I think, what then did Abraham do, being asleep, to ensure the blessings, continuance, and fulfillment of this promise? And does it not appear, if we should look through the fulfillment of prophesy, what lengths God Himself did go to in order to fulfill this word?

The scripture says

[b][color=000000]He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.[/color][/b]

In connection with this, I wonder what the Lord Jesus was speaking of when He said

[b][color=660033]Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.[/color][/b]

I don't know, but is it possible, that when the [i]smoking furnace[/i] and the [i]burning lamp[/i] passed between the pieces of those animals that Abraham knew or understood something of what God would do in and through Christ Jesus?

[b][color=000000]Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.[/color][/b]

Peace be with you all in Messiah Jesus.

I don't understand how people can worm their way around believing in Christ's full payment for our sins just because some preacher said so. Forget about what Finney said, forget about what Ravenhill, Reidhead, and Washer says. It doesn't matter what man has to say about anything. It only matters what God has said, and He cried with a loud voice "It is finished!" and He sealed it with His blood.

I'm not trying to be silly here, but this argument is self-defeating and discounts its own author. If it does not matter what... [i]Finney said, forget about what Ravenhill, Reidhead, and Washer says...[/i] then it would reason that the author of the statement is in the same boat with these men. Certainly scripture is the final authority, but great men and women of God have disagreed on these topics for years and all would likely make an identical statement... [i]It doesn't matter what man has to say about anything. It only matters what God has said,...[/i]. Then each one makes a quote from the word and reaffirms their position. I think the key is to listen to what each other is hearing God say (in the word) and prayerfully and honestly allow the Lord to lead us into all truth. No scripture is of a private interpretation. This is why the discussion is useful so long as we can keep a good Spirit about it and love one another in spite of our different views. this does not mean that we compromise the essentials, but that we are careful not to judge a person before we have fully heard the matter and understand what they meant. This is not always possible- especially after these men are dead (Finney, etc.). ;-)

Hi Mahoney,

I think this is the biggest contention with Finney. If you are strong enough, you can follow Finney's gospel. I am not. I need Christ.

I think when taken together we would conclude that Finney would have agreed that he absolutely needed Christ. His works are very thought out and extensive so its impossible to take one writing or even a section and come to any real conclusions. I have done that with him and found out later I had wrongly perceived him in an area.

God Bless

-Robert