Charles G Finney and Moral Government

I want to try to examine the teaching of Charles Finney. In doing so I will exercise the same courtesy as if he were before me. I will not attack his character or his ministry but will contain myself to examining what he has written and what we should understand by it.

I will take my quotations from the 1851 version of the published work. Some have objected to other versions has having omissions and additions.

The front page of the book has the title...
LECTURES
ON
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY,
EMBRACING

MORAL GOVERNMENT,
THE ATONEMENT, MORAL AND PHYSICAL DEPRAVITY,
NATURAL, MORAL, AND GRACIOUS ABILITY, REPENTANCE, FAITH,
JUSTIFICATION, SANCTIFICATION, &c.

BY THE
REV. CHARLES G. FINNEY,
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE OBERLIN COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE, OHIO, AMERICA.

THE WHOLE WORK REVISED, ENLARGED, AND PARTLY RE-WRITTEN BY THE AUTHOR,
DURING HIS LATE VISIT TO ENGLAND.
It will be helpful to see the priorities that Finney himself placed on this publication; it is an exposition of the theory of Moral Government in Systematic Theology. The opening words of the preface reads...
TO a great extent, the truths of the blessed gospel have been hidden under a false philosophy.
Finney's "Systematic Theology" lectures are the exposition of a philosophy. He claimed that much of the Calvinism and hyper Calvinism of his day was a 'false philosophy' and this series of lectures is Finney's attempt to provide a true philosophy.

This will explain a pattern which may surprise those who read it for the first time, namely that in the foundational chapters there is very little quotation of scripture. It is philosophy rather than Bible exposition. Finney begins not from scriptural revelation but from reason. He was a lawyer and his style is very pedantic, building one idea on the last. This has some advantages but one disadvantage it has if that is you cannot accept the earlier part of his reasoning the later parts are so dependent upon the earlier that it leaves you with a sense of uncertainty.

The pattern is A therefore B, B therefore C, C therefore D etc. If you cannot accept A the whole pattern grinds to a halt. You are left with an elaborate building with no foundation or at least with a foundation in which you have no confidence.

Finney's whole philosophy is built on what might be called 'fairness'. God's works and ways must be seen to be fair. This is another pattern of the law with which Finney was so familiar; justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. There are truths which he holds to be self-evident and which everyone will agree to. He tries to build on a sense of 'moral' common sense. In this sense he is not so different from the Roman Catholic notion of 'natural theology'. Catholic theologians claimed that logic steps would take any reasonable man from the fact of the existence of the world into fully convinced believers. There is something of the same presumption in Finney's writings. He believes that what he is writing is self-evident and that it is the only reasonable explanation for things as they are.

In these lectures he does not begin with the Bible but with self-evident facts which no reasonable person would contradict. He continues...
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.
So Finney claims that it was his reading of the Bible that alerted him to these 'discrepancies' but his lectures do not begin with the Bible but with "How we attain to the knowledge of certain truths". He then lists the ways in which we attain such knowledge...

1. The Revelation of Self-Consciousness
2. The Revelation of the Sense
3. The Revelation of the Reason
4. The Revelation of the Understanding

He is presenting his case as he would do to a court of law;
such as would be admitted in a court of justice.
It is important to keep this in mind when we try to understand his points later on. He is basing his case on 'natural theology' and his arguments are those that he believes would carry the verdict in a court of law. Finney, of course, was a lawyer... as was Augustine, Tertullian and John Calvin!!

The question must be asked as to whether it is appropriate to start at this point. Finney himself believed in 'human depravity' but saw it as being self-induced rather that transmitted. Is it safe to base our case, as Christians, primarily upon the functions of natural reason and obeying such such laws of evidence as would convince a court of law?

In his lectures, at least, Finney does not begin with divine revelation but with human reasoning. To my mind this is going to have serious repercussions to all he writes. Traditionally orthodox Christians have said 'I believe therefore I think'. Belief arises from revelation but for Finney in his lectures conviction will not arise from divine revelation but from the power of reason. We should bear this in mind as we move on to consider his views on the Atonement.

Brother Ron, would you say that Finney's Theology was more ethics than anything else?

I know that when comparing Finney to Emmanuel Kant alone, one can find a multitude of similarities.

If I was going for a PhD, I would write a thesis on this, but thankfully I'm not. :-D

This will explain a pattern which may surprise those who read it for the first time, namely that in the foundational chapters there is very little quotation of scripture.

I don't recall ever reading of someone alerting the reader to this... namely how little if any scripture is cited, entire paragraphs or pages and no scripture?? How could this be?

Ron's:

In his lectures, at least, Finney does not [u]begin[/u] with divine revelation but with [u]human reasoning[/u]. To my mind this is going to have serious repercussions to all he writes. Traditionally orthodox Christians have said 'I believe therefore I think'.

The first issue we face in your question is [i]AUTHORITY[/i]. Who or what is in authority? The Chicago Statement reaffirms the historical evangelical position on the authority of scripture. In simple terms, it is forever settled in heaven (Psalm 119:89).

After nearly 1000 years locked up in the dead language of Latin scripture once again saw the light of day in the common language(s) of the people. The Pope's had userped God's authority and passed decrees or laws themselves. As Tyndale stated to the priest, "I defy the Pope and all of his laws. If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause a man that driveth the plow to know the scriptures better than you."

The word of God was the sword of the great Reformation. The reformers refocused the attention on the scriptures. Hence, [i]sola scriptura[/i] (Only the scriptures) refocused absolute and ultimate authority on God's holy word. This simply means, that God's word is the final authority- the Supreme Court in the realm of human argument. The question is [i]not[/i] does the scripture square with my 'reason' or 'experience', but does my 'reason' or 'experience' square with God's word.

To assert my reason over the revelation of God's word is the epitome of rebellion and is the seed of Satan. The enemies herald is simple; "hath God said?" Satan always seeks to undermine the authority of God's word and cloud what He has said. Satan cannot bear to have man take God at His word. He wants man to lean on their own understanding, trust themselves, and do what is right in their own eyes. He did it to Eve and he does it today. To believe God is to exercise [i]faith[/i]. To believe Satan is to sin.

How shall we approach the sacred book? Perhaps with the addresse of the Book of Revelation:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18, 19)

Genesis begins with the enemies lie that undermined God's word and plunged humanity into damnation; God having set the record strait ends with this solemn warning. We do well to take heed.

Without the authority of scripture everything becomes subjective. The scriptures must retain their place as God's infallible revelation by which all things are and shall be judged. Scripture is high and exalted above all reason. If scripture be made subject to man's reason it shall be foolishness to him because it is spiritually discerned. The natural man does not comprehend the things of God.

Brother Ron, would you say that Finney's Theology was more ethics than anything else?

If I was going for a PhD, I would write a thesis on this, but thankfully I'm not.

entire paragraphs or pages and no scripture?? How could this be?

When we look at his handling of the atonement we will see this more clearly.

Ron, thank you for this timely series. By the way, good use of the word "turgid". ;-)

In his lectures, at least, Finney does not begin with divine revelation but with human reasoning.

Nile

Thus the bible says God has given light to every man and Romans talks about the law being written on the heart, the conscience also bearing witness.

Yes but what do men do with this light?

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that [b]light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.[/b]
John 3:20 [b]For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.[/b]

Men are not morally good according to this, but rather evil. Compare this what the Romans verse, and you have a better case of man's depravity than you do of ability.

The light of nature is not enough to bring a man to salvation, as man would rather worship it than God. Also faith comes by the Spirit working with the preaching of the Gospel to give life to hearts to believe.

If Finney really believed that men were morally capable because of conscience then he is far more dangerous than I suspected. If he believed that through the light within, or nature alone men could come to faith, this is similar to new age, or pantheistic views, not Biblical Christianity.

Perhaps this why the area of New York where Finney spent the majority of his time was referred to as the "burned over" district. Form that area sprung forth the Mormons, and many other pseudo-Christian groups that believed they could create a utopia here on Earth because they were morally able.

As a side note for any interested, search around and find Joseph Smith's(founder of Mormons) testimony, and then compare it with Finney's. The similarities will shock you. Either one copied the other, or it was the same spirit working in each.

roaringlamb wrote:

Thus the bible says God has given light to every man and Romans talks about the law being written on the heart, the conscience also bearing witness.

Yes but what do men do with this light?

All mankind must [b]be able[/b] to come to God when commanded, otherwise the command is unjust and/or imoral.

If God does not give the ability when HE commands, then HE is guilty of imorality and/or injustice.

It is imoral or unjust to burden a man with no legs with a command to walk.
It is imoral and/or injust to burden a man with no ability to obey a command.

Would it be right to command a blind person to see or read a sign 5 feet way without, first, giving him new eyes?
That is what you are doing with God, having Him comand the imposible without giving the ability to obey; accept to only the elect.

All mankind already has the ability repent and to put their faith in HIM and the evidence for this is the fact of the commandmend its self.

All mankind must already have the ability to obey all Gods commands.
The first of His commands are to repent and put thair faith in HIM, because the ability to obey the rest of Gods commands are found in Christ.

Romans 9: (NIV)

10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d]13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e]

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"[i] 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "[j]

27Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
"Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality."[k]

29It is just as Isaiah said previously:
"Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah."[l]

Israel's Unbelief
30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33As it is written:
"See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[m]

It is immoral or unjust to burden a man with no legs with a command to walk.
It is immoral and/or unjust to burden a man with no ability to obey a command.

Would it be right to command a blind person to see or read a sign 5 feet way without, first, giving him new eyes?
That is what you are doing with God, having Him command the impossible without giving the ability to obey; accept to only the elect.

Dear brother, would it be wrong of God to command Moses to part the Red Sea when he could not do it?
Exo 14:15 And the LORD said unto Moses, Wherefore criest thou unto me? [b]speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward:[/b]
Exo 14:16 [b]But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.[/b]

Would it be unfair of God to command a small army to fight against one many times stronger like He did with Gideon?

Would it be unjust of God to command Joshua to march around a city, and then the walls would fall down?

Was Jesus mocking the man in the Synagogue when He told Him to stretch forth his hand?

Was Christ immoral when he told the lame man to stand, take up his bed and go home?

There are many more instances in which God commands what man cannot do, but then gives the ability to obey to whom He chooses so that the glory is His alone.

What power did these have within themselves to do anything towards what God commanded?

There was one man who was created with the ability to obey or disobey, and he fell, and thus so did the human race. You refuse this, and that is why it is impossible for you to see how God can command what man cannot do.

It is this very glorious truth that man cannot that brings forth the glory of the Gospel of Christ. For what man could not, Christ did, and that work will be applied to those whom God has chosen in Christ before the foundation of the Earth.

Also, man cannot keep the 10 commandments, is it unfair of God to say we must?

Peacecraft;
Pleas donot only post scripture, give a commentary on why you posted it.
In other words, you did't proove a thing.

[b]Rom 9:13[/b] [color=990000]As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.[/color]
This is not saying that God hates some individuals.
Please read in context with the co-text
[b]Gen 25:23[/b] [color=990000]And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in your womb, and two manner of people shall be born of you; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.[/color]
[b]Rom 9:16 [/b] [color=990000]So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy.[/color]
Abraham willed for Ishmael, Isaac willed for Esau.
God had a purpose in choosing one of each for a liniage.

[b]Rom 9:18[/b] [color=990000]Therefore has he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens.[/color]
Pharaoh, first hardend his own heart, after God commands and one hardedn his heart against HIM, who has resisted his will?(Rom 9:18)

[b]Rom 9:20-22[/b] [color=990000]Nay but, O man, who are you that replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me thus?
:21 Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:[/color]
Whoever:
[b]2Timoth 2:20-21[/b] [color=990000]But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honor, and some to dishonor.
:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and fit for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.[/color]
One always has a chance and ability to choose what vessle to be

[b]Jer 18:3-6[/b] [color=990000]Then I went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he worked a work on the wheels.
:4 And the vessel that he made of [b]clay was marred in the hand of the potter[/b]: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
:5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
:6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? says the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.[/color]
God the "potter" didn't mare the clay Himself, it mare in his hands of its self.
Israel weren't suposed to go to Babylon, that is why HE sent Jeremiah.
God had to remold the clay(Israel) by sending them to babylon, their own falt.

Dear brother, would it be wrong of God to command Moses to part the Red Sea when he could not do it?

Would it be unfair of God to command a small army to fight against one many times stronger like He did with Gideon?

Would it be unjust of God to command Joshua to march around a city, and then the walls would fall down?

Was Jesus mocking the man in the Synagogue when He told Him to stretch forth his hand?

Was Christ immoral when he told the lame man to stand, take up his bed and go home?

In none of these examples did God command something which couldn't be done. He always provided a way for the command to be done.

What power did these have within themselves to do anything towards what God commanded?

Also, man cannot keep the 10 commandments, is it unfair of God to say we must?

Pharaoh, first hardend his own heart, after God commands and one hardedn his heart against HIM, who has resisted his will?(Rom 9:18)

This is not what Scripture says brother-
Exodus 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

This come before any mention of Pharaoh hardening his heart.

:21 Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Whoever:

Don't know why you didn't put this part though brother-
Romans 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on [b]the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,[/b]
Romans 9:24 [b]Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?[/b]

I know it doesn't fit with your theology, but the Scripture is always right. The vessels here are individuals, and even IF(mighty big if mind you, as the verb structure, and wording in Greek leave no option but individuals)they were nations, at this point Paul points out that the vessels of mercy were "us", the Church, and not the vessels of wrath.

The next passage you love to quote from has little to nothing to do with this passage. But just so you understand the context of what Paul is getting at-

Here is the beginning of the thought process-
2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
2Ti 2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

[i]Paul here gives instruction for Timothy[/i]

Then-
2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
2Ti 2:19 [b]Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.[/b]

[i]Why Timothy should avoid these men, and the fact that God's truth shall prevail as shall His people[/i]

Now comes your verses-
2Ti 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
2Ti 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

Who are the "these" Paul refers to? It is not the "vessels" obviously, so who?

Those who do what Hymenaeus and Philetus did, which was in v.18
2Ti 2:18 [b]Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.[/b]

Follow the text brother, rather than inserting your own agenda upon it.

"Could" is the word you're using wrong here. Moses "could" part the Red Sea, as is apparent by the fact that he *did*. Therefore God did not command him to do something he "could" not do.

Brother, we both know that Moses "could not" do this, and that God had to. God commanded the impossible that He might work and show forth His glory to His people that they would trust Him alone.

You're trying to say that Jesus told him to do something he couldn't do. The man could stretch forth his hand as evidenced by the fact that he did.

So all those years sitting there with a crippled hand, and suddenly one day he decides it needs to heal, and heals himself? I don't think so, man cannot heal himself brother.

In none of these examples did God command something which couldn't be done. [b]He always provided a way for the command to be done.[/b]

Bingo!!! He did the work, not man. Much like my hammer does the job of driving nails as it is in my hand under my power, but once my influence is gone, it is lifeless and capable of nothing, not even what it was made for.

God alone gives what He commands, that is why it is called grace, and not merit. God justifies the ungodly, not the righteous.

Which of the 10 Commandments are you or anyone unable to keep?
They are all able to be kept.
Because they can be kept does not mean they will though.

None are able to love the Lord there God with all their heart, mind, soul, and strength all the time.

Even now you and I have rival affections that war with Christ for priority, thus they are idols.

This is why we need a perfect Substitute who did all this for us, and then imputes that to us. It is the great exchange, my sin for His righteousness, that is the Gospel.

Brother the Law is a hard taskmaster to please, and I hope you are found at Mount Zion rather than Mount Sinai.

God alone gives what He commands

None are able to love the Lord there God with all their heart, mind, soul, and strength all the time.

Even now you and I have rival affections that war with Christ for priority, thus they are idols.

Having rival affections is not ungodliness - it is the curse of this body, something beyond our control.
It is not the rivalry that matters, it is who obey that matters.

If God demands all, and we do not give Him all, it is still sin brother, and were it not for the greatness of Christ before His Father on our behalf, we would be doomed. Aren't you overjoyed to know that!!!!!

If God demands all, and we do not give Him all, it is still sin brother, and were it not for the greatness of Christ before His Father on our behalf, we would be doomed. Aren't you overjoyed to know that!!!!!

Then let us rejoice together!!!

Amen!!!
Glory to God!!!

Brother Ron wrote:

I want to try to examine the teaching of Charles Finney. In doing so I will exercise the same courtesy as if he were before me. I will not attack his character or his ministry but will contain myself to examining what he has written and what we should understand by it.

I sort of got lost just after this assertion. The title of the essay was given, then you began by inserting your premise on which you started to build without first giving us the actual content of Finney's article.

I myself have only read two sermons by Finney, so I am not familiar with the material your are commenting on in this thread...

just a thought

In Christ
Jeff

roaringlamb wrote:

Would it be unfair of God to command a small army to fight against one many times stronger like He did with Gideon?

Would it be unjust of God to command Joshua to march around a city, and then the walls would fall down?

Was Jesus mocking the man in the Synagogue when He told Him to stretch forth his hand?

Was Christ immoral when he told the lame man to stand, take up his bed and go home?

The beginning of the process begins with God speaking to the individual. The individual then has the choice to react to what God has spoke. This is the point where faith finds it's beginning.

When God gave instructions to Joshua on how to go about defeating the city of Jericho, it was at this point, where the unfolding of the event began. Now Joshua had previous experience in the ways of God and the faithfulness of His promise. So based on Joshua's past experience, it was not the first time that he was given a task that the world would view as foolishness.

Then we are given another example in the book of Joshua, where the elders met to discuss how next to defeat the city of Ai.... We find that they failed at this task because they had not inquired of God how they should proceed.

So the process begins when God speaks.

In Christ
Jeff

Then we are given another example in the book of Joshua, where the elders met to discuss how next to defeat the city of Ai.... We find that they failed at this task because they had not inquired of God how they should proceed.

If I remember correctly, it was because of Achan's sin that they were defeated by a much smaller city than Jericho. The point being that they had violated what God had told them, and did not follow His orders, or allow Him to work in His way.

Peacecraft;
Pleas donot only post scripture, give a commentary on why you posted it.
In other words, you did't proove a thing.

Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
This is not saying that God hates some individuals.
Please read in context with the co-text

What is better? Scripture? or my commentary? Sometimes I'd rather allow scripture to speak for itself :) Lol, my ideas are worthless, only God's opinion matters :)

As far as the verse "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." If God didn't hate that individual wouldn't he have used a different word other than hate? I understand the context, but it still says plain and simple, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." God made some for noble purposes and some for destruction. What makes you think it means something else?

God made some for noble purposes and some for destruction. What makes you think it means something else?

The overall biblical revelation of the character of God. When certain statements seems to conflict with something we know for certain about God's character then we need to take a closer look. We need to keep reading. We know for a fact that God is not the [i]author[/i] of sin. We know that God does not create men to simply be pawns of rebellion. Men are created with the capacity to respond rightly to God.

Men are created with the capacity to respond rightly to God.

Brother Robert as much as I respect you, and have been blessed by much you have posted here, I must disagree.

Here is the head which presents us with two paths, one is Biblical, and one is not. I know you will say your view is Biblical, and I will say mine is and I do not wish to go round and round.

Yet I will ask these two questions-

1)If a man is enslaved in anything, is he free?

2)Did God know the sin that would come into the human race, and make provision for it before the foundation of the world in Christ?

1)If a man is enslaved in anything, is he free?

We know from Paul's admonishion to servants that slaves do not by default blindly obey or suffer absolute control of their master's. Men serve as men pleasers and with eye service. In this way I do not believe slavery to sin is even on par with demon possession. Yet even the demoniac Legion was able to come to Christ for mercy and he was full of devils. Legion was not free. But Legion did not suffer absolute subjection to those demons. So freedom is relative, I think. Personally I believe that men are by nature sinners, but that they could also have chosen [u]not[/u] to sin.

Did God know the sin that would come into the human race, and make provision for it before the foundation of the world in Christ?

Certainly. Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. I believe also that physical death was made part of the penalty for sin that would ultimately allow for our death to Sin in christ on the Cross. So there was a lot of forethought and planning that went into the creation. What a marvel God's redemptive plan is!

We know from Paul's admonishion to servants that slaves do not by default blindly obey or suffer absolute control of their master's. Men serve as men pleasers and with eye service. In this way I do not believe slavery to sin is even on par with demon possession. Yet even the demoniac Legion was able to come to Christ for mercy and he was full of devils. Legion was not free. But Legion did not suffer absolute subjection to those demons. So freedom is relative, I think. Personally I believe that men are by nature sinners, but that they could also have chosen not to sin.

What I am getting at is that a man that is enslaved and loves his master(sin) must be set free from it, man does not have the ability to free himself from sin and its enjoyment. This is why many programs like A.A. fail because they are trying to cast out the flesh with the flesh.

I do not understand how a man's will can be enslaved, and yet have folks say it is free?

roaringlamb wrote:

It is immoral or unjust to burden a man with no legs with a command to walk.
It is immoral and/or unjust to burden a man with no ability to obey a command.

Would it be right to command a blind person to see or read a sign 5 feet way without, first, giving him new eyes?
That is what you are doing with God, having Him command the impossible without giving the ability to obey; accept to only the elect.

Dear brother, would it be wrong of God to command Moses to part the Red Sea when he could not do it?
Exo 14:15 And the LORD said unto Moses, Wherefore criest thou unto me? [b]speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward:[/b]
Exo 14:16 [b]But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.[/b]

Just as with all your questions, there was an ability when commanded, you know that.

roaringlamb wrote:

Pharaoh, first hardend his own heart, after God commands and one hardedn his heart against HIM, who has resisted his will?(Rom 9:18)

This is not what Scripture says brother-
Exodus 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

This come before any mention of Pharaoh hardening his heart.

roaringlamb wrote:
Don't know why you didn't put this part though brother-
Romans 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, [b]which he had afore prepared unto glory,[/b]
Romans 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
I know it doesn't fit with your theology, but the Scripture is always right. The vessels here are individuals, and even IF(mighty big if mind you, as the verb structure, and wording in Greek leave no option but individuals)they were nations, at this point Paul points out that the vessels of mercy were "us", the Church, and not the vessels of wrath.

I know my wife so well that I make reservations to "Olive Garden" before I give her a choice to choose all the restaurants in the state.
She has all the chances to choose any restaurant she wills.
However, She chooses "Olive Garden" that was already pre-chosen by me with reservations [b]which I had afore prepared unto[/b] dinner.
Another example:
I invite all the people in my town to "Olive Garden", but I only make reservations for those who I know that will come.
While every one has an invitation and has equal chance to be with me and all have a choice to come or not, only those who I know will choose to come are reserved to sit at my table [b]which I had afore prepared unto[/b] dinner..

So as God elects those who He foreknows will choose.

roaringlamb wrote:
The next passage you love to quote from has little to nothing to do with this passage. But just so you understand the context of what Paul is getting at-

Here is the beginning of the thought process-
2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
2Ti 2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

Paul here gives instruction for Timothy

Then-
2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
2Ti 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

Why Timothy should avoid these men, and the fact that God's truth shall prevail as shall His people

Now comes your verses-
2Ti 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
2Ti 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

Who are the "these" Paul refers to? It is not the "vessels" obviously, so who?

Those who do what Hymenaeus and Philetus did, which was in v.18
2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Follow the text brother, rather than inserting your own agenda upon it.

Just as Romans 9:22-23 and Israel choosing to obey God by listening to Jeremaiah they will be vessels of mercy.
No matter what, mankind always has a choice in obeying God or disobeying, you can not deny that.

I do not understand how a man's will can be enslaved, and yet have folks say it is free?

This is because freedom is relative. By freedom, I do not mean to say freedom from oppression or even a 'bent' tendency to commit sin. I believe sinners are fulfilled by sinning. They have the spirit of disobedience (Eph. 2). Thier nature is corrupt and that corruption extends to the whole of their being. They cannot be repaired- they must be regenerated. Why? They are by nature the children of wrath. This is why we needed to be born again. What you say about A.A. is true. You cannot do with the flesh what can only be done in the Spirit.

Finney did not understand this. He did not believe that Sin could be personified in the sense that I speak. He believed only in sin in the sense of an immoral act. But the Spirit that a person is of is the question. The Holy Spirit produces the fruit of the Spirit in a persons life. The fruit of the Spirit cannot be produced apart from the Spirit. Their is no such thing as the "fruit of the Law." The law cannot produce fruit- it can merely hemm man in until a better hope comes (came). I have written extensively about this.

God's objective along with reconcilition was the restoration of the image of God in man. Christ must needs be formed in us. This is a process that begins when a person is baptized into Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit. From then we are changed into His image from glory to glory. It is not an instant thing- but the Spirit has come and the nature of the person is now one of obedience and submission. The heart is replaced. The individual through the cross is circumcised of the flesh and enabled to walk in the Spirit. This is not keeping a series of rules- but a genuine change of nature. Where thorns and briars once were produced- the fruit of the spirit will now come. It is interesting that fruit bearing plants in the middle east were not allowed to produce fruit the first two years. The buds were broken off. I think that is a message in itself. However, the tendency of the tree was to produce fruit after it's kind. before salvation i6t produced thorns and briars- now it produces fruit. This opportunity did not exist until Pentecost. John Baptist stated it in Matt. 3:10; 'now' the axe is lait to the root of the tree. A new dispensation had come. God was raising the standard. A new hope was near arrival. Man no longer would simply be hemmed in by the Law- but would have opportunity to be regenerated by the Spirit- dead to the Law and Sin and have the very nature of Christ. A nature whose 'meat' is to do the will of God.

As sure a the born again can still sin (as slaves to Christ) so also can a sinner 'not' sin as slaves to Sin. My nature is to obey God- but in no wise as a Child of God am I some how 'forced' to obey regardless. I 'can' still sin. I can choose [i]not[/i] to obey God. So as a slave to Christ their remains the real possibility of disobedience. In so far as I am a slave to Christ- is a sinner a slave to sin. That's really my point.

God Bless,

Robert

Brother Roaringlamb wrote:

If I remember correctly, it was because of Achan's sin that they were defeated by a much smaller city than Jericho. The point being that they had violated what God had told them, and did not follow His orders, or allow Him to work in His way.

You bring up a very important point...God spoke instructions and the disobedience to God's word brought wrath upon those who disobeyed.

However, I was refering to this situation...

Josh. 7:2 Now Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which is beside Beth Aven, on the east side of Bethel, and spoke to them, saying, “Go up and spy out the country.” So the men went up and spied out Ai. 3 And they returned to Joshua and said to him, “Do not let all the people go up, but let about two or three thousand men go up and attack Ai. Do not weary all the people there, for the people of Ai are few.”

Here we find that Joshua did not seek God but chose to listen to those he sent up to spy...

Later we find that once Achan's sin is dealt with, it is God who gives the instructions on how to proceed against the men of Ai...

1 Now the LORD said to Joshua: “Do not be afraid, nor be dismayed; take all the people of war with you, and arise, go up to Ai. See, I have given into your hand the king of Ai, his people, his city, and his land. 2 And you shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king. Only its spoil and its cattle you shall take as booty for yourselves. Lay an ambush for the city behind it.”

The Lord even directed the timing of the plan that He gave to Joshua...

Josh. 8:18 Then the LORD said to Joshua, “Stretch out the spear that is in your hand toward Ai, for I will give it into your hand.” And Joshua stretched out the spear that was in his hand toward the city. 19 So those in ambush arose quickly out of their place; they ran as soon as he had stretched out his hand, and they entered the city and took it, and hurried to set the city on fire. 20 And when the men of Ai looked behind them, they saw, and behold, the smoke of the city ascended to heaven. So they had no power to flee this way or that way, and the people who had fled to the wilderness turned back on the pursuers.

In Christ
Jeff

Brother Robert wrote:

We know that God does not create men to simply be pawns of rebellion. Men are created with the capacity to respond rightly to God.

Gal. 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.

Job 34:10 \t“Therefore listen to me, you men of understanding:
\tFar be it from God to do wickedness,
\tAnd from the Almighty to commit iniquity.
11 \tFor He repays man according to his work,
\tAnd makes man to find a reward according to his way.
12 \tSurely God will never do wickedly,
\tNor will the Almighty pervert justice.

In Christ
jeff

Brother Roaringlamb wrote:

What I am getting at is that a man that is enslaved and loves his master(sin) must be set free from it, man does not have the ability to free himself from sin and its enjoyment.

Gen. 4:6 So the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

In this example, God speaks to Cain. He exhorts Cain and encourages him to turn back towards Him. God also warns Cain of the consequence of not repenting...

And finally God says this to Cain..."but you should rule over it."

What does Scripture teach us?

In Christ
Jeff

I myself have only read two sermons by Finney, so I am not familiar with the material your are commenting on in this thread...

As Finney's lecture on the Atonement is in the later part of the book I thought it only fair to give a general comment on his purpose and style.

Ron, have you read Finney's entire 1851 Edition of His theology? His theology must be read in it's entirety to properly understand it.

Finney's theology was far more then mere philosophy, it was scriptural. Finney built his entire theology upon the two greatest commandments and quotes an abundance of scripture thorough all of it.

Is there anything available in a devotional style of Finney? I always just feel as though I have been in a lecture; I never touch the man. If you compare something like Thomas Watson's writings, and I am not a Calvinist, the man just touches the heart. He lifts my eyes in worship and wonder. Finney makes my head ache.

I want to be fair to Finney in my comments. His work is written in conscious opposition to the Calvinism of his day which may have been as dry as Finney's responses. I maintain that Finney's theology is a reaction to Calvinism and as with all reactions almost inevitably goes too far in the opposite direction. For the record I am anti-Calvinism and anti-Finneyism, although I have good friends who are Calvinists and good friends who are Finneyist.

This thread has arisen out of the earlier one on Open Theism and as you rightly say a view of the Atonement close to Finney's is necessary to a consistent believe in Open Theism. So I will move on as quickly as I can to Finney's view of the Atonement.

I always just feel as though I have been in a lecture; I never touch the man.

If you an Englishman, who has a love for language, labours over this, how do you expect us semi-literate Americans to participate in this thread?

God Bess
In Christ
Jeff

Is there anything available in a devotional style of Finney?

Yes, actually. "Principles of Union with Christ" compiled by L.G. Parkhurst. These are 31 short devotions based on Christ being our total and utter and central sufficiency in all things.

Brother Paul

If you an Englishman, who has a love for language, labours over this, how do you expect us semi-literate Americans to participate in this thread?

Brother Ron wrote:

I don't regard Americans as semi-literate. and I will try to decode Finney (who was an American!) for you. His most vocal supporters on SI are all Americans.

Of course, in each generation, there is a remnant...:-)
Jeff

Ps...I finally took the time to figure out how one posts those faces...

Of course, in each generation, there is a remnant... :-)
Jeff

NIce one! ;-)

In the 1851 version of Finney’s lectures Chapter 34 is entitled Atonement. (in the 1878 version Chapter 25)

I will try to identify the passages which are integral to Finney’s argument.
7. There is an important distinction between retributive and public justice.
Retributive justice consists in treating every subject of government according to his character. It respects the intrinsic merit or demerit of each individual, and deals with him accordingly. Public justice, in its exercise, consists in the promotion and protection of the public interests, by such legislation and such an administration of law, as is demanded by the highest good of the public. It implies the execution of the penalties of law where the precept is violated, unless something else is done that will as effectually secure the public interests. When this is done, public justice demands, that the execution of the penalty shall be dispensed with by extending pardon to the criminal. Retributive justice makes no exceptions, but punishes without mercy in every instance of crime. [u]Public justice makes exceptions, as often as this is permitted or required by the public good.[/u] Public justice is identical with the spirit of the moral law, and in its exercise, regards only the spirit of the law. Retributive justice cleaves to the letter, and makes no exceptions to the rule, "the soul that sinneth, it shall die."This is an important stage because Finney holds that the death of Christ is not ‘retributive’ or ‘penal’. Orthodox evangelicalism has always held that Christ suffered as a substitute and that what happened at Calvary was God’s wrath being outpoured on man’s substitute. Finney denies this version of the Atonement and concentrates on what is described above as ‘public justice’. He claims that Christ’s death was to show God’s attitude to sin and the sinner and hence to show God’s Moral Governance as distinct from Calvary being a judicial act against the Sinbearer. In this sense Finney claims that Christ died ‘for sins’ in the sense of showing that God regards sin as serious, and Christ’s death is the degree of the seriousness with which God regards sin. His death is, in a sense, a demonstration of the morality of God who cannot/will not ignore transgression. Christ’s death is not, according to this theory, the moment of bearing my personal transgressions and their due penalty.

His distinction between physical and moral governance is interesting and I like the way that he distinguishes between the inviolable penalty of law and the God’s higher demands of heart obedience. The point he makes above is that ‘Public justice makes exceptions, as often as this is permitted or required by the public good’. The earlier chapters deal with the purpose of law and justice and he claims that absolute carrythrough of the laws penalties are not necessary if public good and order can be maintained by other means. This is the lawyer speaking. Law has different aspects as regards its purpose. Punishment may be regarded as punitive, purgative, preventative. In other words is the purpose of punishment to make the lawbreaker suffer, or to cleanse the offence, or to prevent others committing the same offences? Generally elements of all three might be involved. Finney introduces the idea that God can show that he means business but that Christ is not our personal substitute in this matter.

To be fair to Finney this whole 13/14 part section should be read. He makes the point that the exercise of mercy can have a detrimental effect on the notion of law and order and that the exercise of mercy by undermine a right fear of legal retribution. This is partly why Christ suffered as he did; to prevent any thought that God treats such transgression lightly. He claims that Christ’s death fully met the need to satisfy public justice. This is crucial; Finney does not believe that Christ’s death was to satisfy divine justice but the need for public justice to be seen to be ‘just’ or fair. He says that whatever achieves this sense of public justice is therefor sufficient. Christ’s death, claims Finney, provides a full satisfaction of public justice. He is firmly rejecting the language of the Wesley hymn… justice divine is satisfied.

This example could only occur once and Calvary provides the means whereby public justice is achieved while at the same time securing the authority and influence of the law.

He then moves on to a definition of terms. This is always key in theological matters. Often confusion is caused because opponents use the same words but in different senses. He states… The English word atonement is synonymous with the Hebrew word cofer. This is a noun from the verb caufar, to cover. The cofer or cover, was the name of the lid or cover of the ark of the covenant, and constituted what was called the mercy-seat. The Greek word rendered atonement is katallage. This means reconciliation to favour, or more strictly, the means or conditions of reconciliation to favour; from katallasso, to "change, or exchange." The term properly means substitution. An examination of these original words, in the connection in which they stand, will show that the atonement is the governmental substitution of the sufferings of Christ for the punishment of sinners. It is a covering of their sins by his sufferings. This is where things will get complicated. The old KJV only used the language of ‘atonement’ once in the NT and then in a sense that is not used today. The instance is in

[color=0033FF]And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. (Romans 5:11 KJVS)[/color]

Almost all later translations will use the word ‘reconciliation’ rather than atonement. In a sense this is modernisation rather than correction because the 17th century word ‘atonement’ meant what it says ie “at-one-ment”, in other words ‘reconciliation’! The word is not describing the event of Christ’s death but its consequence. Because ‘atonement’ now has a technical sense it is probably wiser to change the KJV to ‘reconciliation’ when reading aloud. In this Finney’s reasoning is a little confused. He is saying that ‘atonement means reconciliation’; that is true linguistically but not theologically. As regards the grammar he is right but as regards what bible students mean by ‘atonement’ it is wrong to say that ‘atonement’ and ‘reconciliation’ are the same thing. Theologically, reconciliation is the consequence of atonement. Wedding and marriage are not the same thing; marriage is the consequence of wedding.

Finney summarises this short section by saying that atonement ‘is a covering of their sins by his sufferings’. This is all part of Finney’s Moral Government theory of the Atonement. I will pause and in the next contribution I will try to show what the words atonement, propitiation and reconciliation mean and their interconnectivity.

Finney immediately follows on with a section on “The teachings of natural theology, or the à priori affirmations of reason upon this subject”. We shall need to look at this section too. Finney is basing his reasoning on ‘reason and observation’ and says so quite plainly.

This is crucial; Finney does not believe that Christ’s death was to satisfy divine justice but the need for public justice to be seen to be ‘just’ or fair.

Again, as you said Ron, this is what gives weight to the law. Punishment is regarded as the means by which God causes men to view His law seriously. Hence, the way you keep folk in obeyance is to keep reminding them of how serious God is about breaking His laws.

God's answer is quite different. God desired to change the nature of man so that by nature he/she would walk in the commandments. This is not containment- this is a new creature.

Brother Ron wrote:

To be fair to Finney this whole 13/14 part section should be read.

I read the introduction to this paper, and this is what Finney asks of those who challenge his writings...

  10. 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 cavillers 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.

So I said to myself, fine, lets' begin. I proceeded to read the first chapter and have come to this conclusion...I am not called to be a theologian...

I will try to glean from you brother...:-)

In Christ
Jeff

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."

However, there is a 'let out clause'... In his preface Finney writes

8. 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.

He might have added 'he would does not accept Finney's foundations will not accept Finney's conclusions'.

Finney then goes on to define the word ‘atonement’.
The English word atonement is synonymous with the Hebrew word cofer. This is a noun from the verb caufar, to cover. The cofer or cover, was the name of the lid or cover of the ark of the covenant, and constituted what was called the mercy-seat. The Greek word rendered atonement is katallage. This means reconciliation to favour, or more strictly, the means or conditions of reconciliation to favour; from katallasso, to "change, or exchange." The term properly means substitution. An examination of these original words, in the connection in which they stand, will show that the atonement is the governmental substitution of the sufferings of Christ for the punishment of sinners. It is a covering of their sins by his sufferings.He notes in this definition that the New Testament term includes the idea of substitution but Finney’s idea of substitution is much more limited than what is usually meant by the term. Finney believes that ‘atonement’ is ‘[b]governmental substitution of the sufferings of Christ for the punishment of sinners. It is a covering of their sins by his sufferings’[/b] This again is a vital distinction because Finney does not believe that Christ ‘took our place’. He does not even believe that Christ took our sins. He believes that Christ covered sins by his sufferings. This is the heart of Governmental Atonement Theory. He believes that this is not personal substitution but governamental substitution. I am not sure what link there is between my sins and Christ’s death in Finney’s theology.

H. Wayne House summarises Governmental Atonement as believing that “Christ’s death demonstrates God’s high regard for his law. It shows God’s attitude toward sin. Through Christ’s death God has a rationale to forgive the sins of those who repent and accept Christ’s substitutionary death”. It seems to me that we need to look carefully at what Finney means by ‘substitution’. He clearly does NOT mean that Christ ‘took my place’. He does NOT mean that Christ ‘took my punishment’. Christ did not take my place nor my sins but is, still, in a ‘governmental’ sense a substitution.

Finney says that the Hebrew word for ‘atonement’ is ‘caufar’. (or kaphar as I shall write it) He then derives its meaning from its etymology. It is an accepted precept among Bible translators that while ‘etymology’ is helpful it is much less important than ‘usage’. It is how a word is ‘used’ biblically which gives us the real definition of that word. As a younger man I spent hours tracing words through the scriptures to get a feel for the sense in which God used words. This is how we learn at our mother’s knee, not from dictionary definitions but from the context in which she uses the words.

If we take the first two instances of the word ‘kaphar’ we can illustrate this. The first instance is in the narrative of Noah’s flood.

[color=0033FF]Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark, and [u]cover[/u] it inside and outside with [u]pitch[/u]. (Genesis 6:14 NKJV)[/color]

In fact both the noun and the verb are used here; the word ‘pitch’ is kopher and the word for ‘cover’ is kaphar. If we stick to the strict etymology of the words for ‘atomenment’ which shall have to say that it means ‘covering with pitch’. Finney stops short of this but wants to make ‘cover’ the real origin of the word. If we were to meditate on the implications of Noah’s first ‘kaphar-ing with kopher’ we would see that the first idea, biblically, is not of covering/hiding but of covering/sealing. The pitch prevented the ‘judgement of God’ (in the form of the flood) from entering the Ark. It was, from the very beginning, protective rather than covert ‘covering’.

It is when we examine the second use of the word that we begin to see its personal implications. The second instance is the narrative of Jacob’s reunion with Esau.

[color=0033FF]and also say, “Behold, your servant Jacob is behind us.’ ” For he said, “[u]I will appease him with the present[/u] that goes before me, and afterward I will see his face; perhaps he will accept me.” (Genesis 32:20 NKJV)[/color]

This is a beautiful example of the concept of ‘atonement’. Jacob’s craft had dispossessed his brother Esau of both birthright and blessing and Esau is angry; murderously angry. Jacob’s reasoning is that he can ‘atone/cover/propitiate’ Esau by means of a lavish gift, and that the consequence of this atonement/propitiation will be reconciliation. It is important to note the order; atonement precedes reconciliation. ‘Seeing his face’ became the Hebrew idiom for being ‘restored to his presence’; most times in the OT when the word ‘presence’ is used it is the Hebrew word for ‘face’. Note too that Jacob believes that if Esau accepts Jacob’s gift he will receive Jacob himself.

Evan Hopkins in the Law of Liberty wrote;”Man feels within himself just what God has revealed in his word - that sin needs something more than the mercy of God. In this respect the doctrine of the Bible, and the witness of the human heart are one. It is a true instinct of man’s nature that teaches him that guilt needs compensation, but the mistake into which he falls, if left to himself, is that he seeks to make that compensation by means which he himself has devised. This is the history of all heathen sacrifice.”It is vital to note in this early example of the ideas behind ‘atonement’ that the one against whom the offence has been committed is ‘angry’. If we pronounce the word ‘appease’ we can hear the word ‘peace’ in it. The purpose of atonement is to provide a means whereby reconciliation and ‘peace’ can be achieved. There can be no peace with an offended God without atonement.

This is one of the other errors of Governmental Theory; that anger is not ‘put away’ by propitiation. Propitiation is the price of ‘putting away’ anger and in this it is also important to understand the theological difference between ‘propitiation’ and ‘expiation’. Modern theologians and some modern translations eg the Revised Standard Version will not use the word ‘propitiate’. They believe it is a pagan concept; that an angry God can be propitiated by means of an adequate offering. Consequently in each of the places where the KJV has ‘propitiate’ in the NT the RSV has ‘expiate’. (Rom 3:25; 1John 2:2; 4:10) What is the difference? Grammatically, expiate takes as its object ‘sin’, while propitiate takes as its object ‘the offended person’. Expiation has an effect upon ‘sin’ while propitiation has an effect upon ‘God’.

It is significant that Finney has very little to say about ‘propitiation’; other than in direct Bible references he only uses the word a couple of times. This is because Finney does not accept the need for God to be ‘propitiated’ in the full sense of the word. He does not believe that the death of Christ ‘turned away’ the wrath of God, but that the death of Christ sets forth ‘governmental atonement’.

When we use the word ‘anger’ of God we do not mean temper. This is not some uncontrollable boiling over of retribution due to a lack of patience. God’s anger or wrath is his settled disposition against the offender. Most evangelicals would regard Isaiah 12 as Messianic; it reads…

[color=0033FF]And in that day you will say: “O LORD, I will praise You; Though You were angry with me, Your anger is turned away, and You comfort me. (Isaiah 12:1 NKJV)[/color]

I will wait until the next contribution before explaining the significance of ‘kopher’ as a ransom price and the significance of a person for person substitution that is basic to the Bible teaching on atonement. In the meantime anyone who wants to examine the nature of the words used in the Bible doctrine of the atonement should read. “The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross; Leon Morris”.

The third use of one of the ‘kaphar’ root words is…

[color=0033FF]If there is imposed on him [u]a sum of money[/u], then he shall pay to redeem his life, whatever is imposed on him. (Exodus 21:30 NKJV)

If there be laid on him [u]a ransom[/u], then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatsoever is laid upon him. (Exodus 21:30 ASV)[/color]

This continues the development of the truths of atonement as progressively revealed in scripture. As Leon Morris says in “The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross”;The noun [i]kopher[/i] means a ransom price, and upon every occasion on which it is used it can be shown that there is the thought of payment to be made. In its biblical usage it refers to the sum paid to redeem a forfeited life. (he then refers to the only two exceptions to this pattern in 1 Sam 12:3 and Amos 5:12 which are references to bribes)So the real meaning of this group of words becomes more and more clear as we progress. It is a specific price paid to a specific person and its purpose is expected to have its impact upon the future of the one who is the purpose of the payment. In other words we are talking about a very clear mapping between the sin, the sinner and the one who has been sinned against. This is not the outworking of something designed as a demonstration of a principle of governmental atonement but a specific payment for a specific purpose. In simple terms then propitiation is the payment of a price to remove the offence in the eyes of the one against whom the offence was committed.

This same truth was illustrated in the Sinai covenant by the Levitical priesthood and its sacrifices.

[color=0000ff] “You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold; two and a half cubits shall be its length and a cubit and a half its width. (Exodus 25:17 NKJV)[/color]

This piece of the Ark is referred to in Hebrews…

[color=0000ff]and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail. (Hebrews 9:5 NKJV)[/color]

… where the Greek word ‘hilasterion’. This is part of the New Testament word group for ‘propitiation’. The suffix ‘erion’ signifies the place where the verb takes place. In other words the object that we have learned to call the ‘mercy seat’ is the ‘place of propitiation’. In the Levitcal type God was propitiated by the blood that was sprinkled here and the consequence was ‘reconciliation’. God was able to remain among his people because he had been ‘propitiated’. The same word is used in one of the most important passages of the New Testament…

[color=0000ff]whom God set forth as [u]a propitiation[/u] by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, (Romans 3:25 NKJV)[/color]

In this passage Paul is ‘justifying God’s behaviour’ and showing how God can be both ‘just and justifier’ of those who put their faith in his son. He makes the statement that a propitiation has been made and names the propitiation as his own son. There is a wonderful switch here however, the provider of the propitiation is not the offender but the offended; it is God who has paid the price to make reconciliation possible. We evangelicals, if we are not Finneyists at any rate, often say that Christ paid the price. If we want to be strictly accurate it is God who paid the price; Christ is the price that God paid. So those building blocks of truth that God preserved for us in the written scriptures find their fulfillment in Calvary. This is the place of the propitiation and Christ is the price that was paid.

It will be worth our while to take a closer look at the central sacrifice of the Levitical priesthood; the Day of Atonement. Can we remind ourselves of the purpose of the scriptures; they were the child-conductor designed to bring the people of Israel to Christ. These sacrifices were embedding truths into the language and mind set of God’s people.

The whole passage is wonderfully instructive but I want to focus on some significant sections. Three animals were involved in this ceremony; a young bull and two goats. The young bull was the ‘sin offering’ for Aaron and his family; Lev 16:6. When that sacrifice was completed Aaron and his sons were fit to continue the ceremony of the Day of Atonement/Propitiation. These two goats symbolise Christ is two aspects of his redeeming work; the price paid and the sin removed. The two goats are really one picture with two aspects. These goats represent what is necessary to make it possible for God to continue to be present among his people. The sins of the people are ‘put upon the head’ of the goat designated to be released.

[color=0000ff] “And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place, the tabernacle of meeting, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat. Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it [u]all[/u] the iniquities of the children of Israel, and [u]all[/u] their transgressions, concerning [u]all[/u] their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man. The goat shall bear on itself [u]all[/u] their iniquities to an uninhabited land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness. (Leviticus 16:20-22 NKJV)[/color]

Notice the emphasis on the all inclusive nature of this ceremony. All the iniquities/transgressions/sins of the people were ‘put on the head of the goat’ and the goat ‘bears on itself all the iniquities’… This goat, in figure, is a sin bearer. It carries away the individual, specific sins of the people. The penalty for the sins was death and the first goat ‘dies’ for the nation. As a result of that death all the specific sins of the people are remitted (sent away).

This picture is repeated in the prophecy of Isaiah;

[color=0000ff] Surely our sicknesses he hath borne, And our pains — he hath carried them, And we — we have esteemed him plagued, Smitten of God, and afflicted. And he is pierced for our transgressions, Bruised for our iniquities, The chastisement of our peace [is] on him, And by his bruise there is healing to us. All of us like sheep have wandered, Each to his own way we have turned, And Jehovah hath caused to meet on him, The punishment of us all. (Isaiah 53:4-6 YNG)[/color]

it is followed later in the same chapter with…

[color=0000ff]Therefore I give a portion to him among the many, And with the mighty he apportioneth spoil, Because that he exposed to death his soul, And with transgressors he was numbered, And he the sin of many hath borne, And for transgressors he intercedeth. (Isaiah 53:12 YNG)[/color]

My question in the light of these verses is ‘how can this mean anything other than atonement by penal substitution?’ The old evangelists used to encourage seekers to consider verse 6 with the words ‘go in at the first “all” and come out at the last “all”. What they meant was ‘acknowledge your sin and put all your trust in Christ having borne your personal punishment’.

philologos, first let me say that I have not read all of your last two posts.

philologs, your explanations of the passages are nice, but I can think of equally good or better explanations under moral government. Do you not know these explanations, or are you just ignoring them for times sake? The issue is not whether a passage can explained under one view of not, for all views can explain all passages. The issue is which view explains the passages [i]best[/i].
I don't have time now, but there are good explanations for any passage you would like.

This again is a vital distinction because Finney does not believe that Christ ‘took our place’. He does not even believe that Christ took our sins. He believes that Christ covered sins by his sufferings. This is the heart of Governmental Atonement Theory. He believes that this is not personal substitution but governamental substitution.

I am not sure what link there is between my sins and Christ’s death in Finney’s theology.

Nile Said:
Finney believed Christ "took our place" and "took our sins" just as much as the Bible says.

We know Christ, like the scapegoat, takes our sins far away from us. We know, like the sin sacrifice (which the priest layed hands on and put the sin on), Christ was sacrificed with our sin on Him. No one believing in Moral Government denies these things!!! They just understands them differently. For example:

-[b]Christ suffered in our place.[/b] He suffered so we wouldn't have to. This doesn't mean that He suffered [i]as[/i] us, but [i]for[/i] us.
-[b]Christ took our sins.[/b] Since forgivenss only comes through Christ, Christ has takes away our sins.
-[b]Christ bore our sin.[/b] The entire weight and responsibility of atoning for our sin was placed on Christ. Consider a father who "bear the sin" of one of his sons, doing everything he can to right all of the wrongs done by his son. Though none of his own responsibility or doing, the father bears the sins of the son. It is the same with Christ.
-[b]What about the sin offerig in the OT?[/b] We know that sin is not a physical thing that can be passed from one physical body to another: sin is a choice. This is self-evident, and the Jews would have understood it as well. By "placing the sins of the people on the animal", the priest was in effect saying, "The satisfaction of the Law concerning the sins of the people is placed upon this animal." I think that is inhereit in the nature of propitiation and atonement.

[b]The crux of the Governmantal Atonemnent position is that penal substitution is not necessary for the Law concerning the sins of the people to be satisfied. Rather, the law can be satisfied elswise, via the Atonement.[/b]

Until it can be shown why penal substitution is necessary and Biblically needed for propitation of sins, there is no need or reason to believe in penal substitution.

philologs, your explanations of the passages are nice, but I can think of equally good or better explanations under moral government. Do you not know these explanations, or are you just ignoring them for times sake?

This is not about explainations it is about truth. This is about Christianity and the foundation of what it means to be a Christian. These things are defined by the scriptures. Ron has demonstrated from the scriptures the progression of the revelation of atonement. If it comes down to the scriptures or the philosophy of Moral Government, I shall stake my faith in nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness. This is the foundation of Christianity.

The issue is which view explains the passages best.
I don't have time now, but there are good explanations for any passage you would like.

Finney starts out as if God's intention is to demonstrate the authority of His law. From then on it is an attempt to hold folk to the fire and keep them fearfully struggling in their own strength to fulfill the law of love. This is wildly differnt than walking in the Spirit. The bottom line is- Finney refused to allow for any theology that offered a sinner any assurance apart from complete perfection. His preaching struck at assurance removing it handily. Error begets error.

To add insult to injury the doctrine then took on a whole new level of laws as Finney reserved the right to demonstrate through biblical principal a whole host of things that were sin. Whether it be Jesse or anyone else in the forums- I seriously doubt if a single soul is living Finney's true doctrine and preaching. Finney believed eating for pleasure was a sin. He believed spending money on yourself for something other than a necessity is a sin. So on and so forth.

If you don't see this link, I don't see how you understand the view.

Consider a father who "bear the sin" of one of his sons, doing everything he can to right all of the wrongs done by his son. Though none of his own responsibility or doing, the father bears the sins of the son. It is the same with Christ.

Finney says that the Hebrew word for ‘atonement’ is ‘caufar’. (or kaphar as I shall write it) He then derives its meaning from its etymology. It is an accepted precept among Bible translators that while ‘etymology’ is helpful it is much less important than ‘usage’. It is how a word is ‘used’ biblically which gives us the real definition of that word.

Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and outside with pitch. (Genesis 6:14 NKJV)

In fact both the noun and the verb are used here; the word ‘pitch’ is kopher and the word for ‘cover’ is kaphar. If we stick to the strict etymology of the words for ‘atomenment’ which shall have to say that it means ‘covering with pitch’.

This is one of the other errors of Governmental Theory; that anger is not ‘put away’ by propitiation.

In simple terms then propitiation is the payment of a price to remove the offence in the eyes of the one against whom the offence was committed.

I am talking on a personal level, not on a governmental level. On a governmental level God cannot simply extend mercy. That would be wrongful and dangerous to everyone. I am talking about on a one-to-one scale.

This goat, in figure, is a sin bearer. It carries away the individual, specific sins of the people

My question in the light of these verses is ‘how can this mean anything other than atonement by penal substitution?’

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows:

yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities:

Once more, to me, this speaks more of governmental atonement than penal substitution. Wounded *FOR* our transgressions. Bruised *FOR* our iniquities. This does not say anything about Christ becoming a sinner and suffering as us. He suffered for us, not as us.

the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death:

and he was numbered with the transgressors;

and he bare the sin of many,

and made intercession for the transgressors.

[b]It is good to note that no where in scripture does it say that Jesus suffered the wrath of God or that He paradoxially somehow spiritually died and was seperated from His Father.[/b]

I hope the moral government position is becoming clearer to you and to others.
Also, forgive the spelling errors, I'm using a computer at the library.

Peace,
Nile

If it comes down to the scriptures or the philosophy of Moral Government,

I shall stake my faith in nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness.

Your comments on Finney are very discouraging and confusing. I see nothing of this sort when reading him. I see the plain truth of scripture and natural revelation.
I do not beleive Finney had perfect theology, but I do believe he taught many good things.

Now's your chance to explain it to me. Was Christ carrying my sins at Calvary? All my sins? Or only those he knew about?

"Ah, but I wasn't alive then and hadn't sinned yet!"

This is extreme literalism.

Christ died because mankind sinned, of whom you are of. His death was sufficient enough to allow mercy for endless sinners, of whom you are of. Christ died for you and your sin in a very real sense.

I think though, that the point you were making might be right. That is, whether or not you had sinned, Christ would have suffered the same.

philologos wrote:

Consider a father who "bear the sin" of one of his sons, doing everything he can to right all of the wrongs done by his son. Though none of his own responsibility or doing, the father bears the sins of the son. It is the same with Christ.

No, this will not do. I am a father but bearing the cost of sins is not the same as bearing the sins themselves. I cannot bear my children's sins. I can compensate for their crimes but sin is against God and no one can bear compensate God, other than God's own provided atonement.

I am a father but bearing the cost of sins is not the same as bearing the sins themselves.

I cannot bear my children's sins.

Oh, unless you misunderstood me!!! I am speaking of sins in the human realm, not pertaining to God.

I can compensate for their crimes but sin is against God and no one can bear compensate God, other than God's own provided atonement.

I do not beleive Finney had perfect theology, but I do believe he taught many good things.

So do I. But we are looking at his view of atonement. That, I can never believe.

Finney believed eating for pleasure was a sin. He believed spending money on yourself for something other than a necessity is a sin.

Anyway, I guess that that's a little off subject.

In fairness, I think it is right [i]on[/i] the subject. Because when you read Finney a lot you realize what he was trying to do in revival. He would destroy assurance by what ever means was necessary. He would mingle among the people in search of sermon material. When he saw something- he tore into it.

This is the philosophy of bringing the people to the point. To get them to repent afresh and get saved again. this is how revival's are promoted. this is what keeps the people from falling into a slumber, etc. You keep tilling the field, etc.

The problem with this is that it is based on finding a way to destroy assurance and bring conviction through, often times, very legalistic preaching.

Finney did not get the meaning of words by "strict etymology" as you imply. Neither do others get the meaning of words by "strict usage".

I am talking on a personal level, not on a governmental level. On a governmental level God cannot simply extend mercy. That would be wrongful and dangerous to everyone. I am talking about on a one-to-one scale.

Hold it. If He paid the punishmet for sin and appeased the wrath of God, then there is nothing to intercede for. Everything that needs done is done. The sinner is automatically made righteouss, for his sin is legally paid for.

This goat, in figure, is a sin bearer. It carries away the individual, specific sins of the people

Meaning what? The goat became guilty of sin?

In simple terms then propitiation is the payment of a price to remove the offence in the eyes of the one against whom the offence was committed.

Question: If men are able to have mercy upon others without demanding a payment, why can't God? Does He hold a grudge, that only a full payment will "remove the offence" in His eyes?
I am talking on a personal level, not on a governmental level. On a governmental level God cannot simply extend mercy. That would be wrongful and dangerous to everyone. I am talking about on a one-to-one scale.

God can do anything he chooses to do but he has revealed himself to be a God who behaves in a way that is just and that he can remain just while justifying the ungodly because ‘justice divine’ was ‘satisfied.

God’s love is holy love and the cross is a demonstration of holy love. God is love and God is holy; these are not alternatives but aspects of his revealed character. God could declare the sinner justified but that would not be ‘just’ unless it could be shown that God’s righteous requirements had been fulfilled. According to Romans the gospel is “a revelation of righteousness… and of the wrath of God”. Was the cross a demonstration of the wrath of God or wasn’t it? According to Rom 3:25 the shedding of Christ’s blood ie his death was the price paid for propitiation.

According to the moral government theory did Christ actually bear my sins in his body on the tree? Or was his death a cosmic illustration to show that God takes sin seriously?

I think though, that the point you were making might be right. That is, whether or not you had sinned, Christ would have suffered the same.

So there is no direct mapping between my offence and Christ's sacrifice? The question is not whether or not he would have suffered the same but whether or not he carried each one of my individual sins on his body on the tree?

Consider a father who "bear the sin" of one of his sons, doing everything he can to right all of the wrongs done by his son. Though none of his own responsibility or doing, the father bears the sins of the son. It is the same with Christ.
You haven't given any arguments as to why what I described is not bearing sins.

[color=0000ff]who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed. (1Peter 2:24 NKJV)[/color]

It is not at all ‘the same with Christ’ as my bearing the cost of my child’s sin.

When I first attempted to read it I too struggled with some of the early chapters only because it was so contrary to what I had been taught.

I don't struggle with it because it is contrary to what I was taught. I was taught neither Calvinism nor Arminianism. It's just that it reads like the title deeds to my house. That lawyer pace just sends me to sleep.

Hi all,

I have been following this interesting conversation.

This is the philosophy of bringing the people to the point. To get them to repent afresh and get saved again. this is how revival's are promoted... The problem with this is that it is based on finding a way to destroy assurance and bring conviction through, often times, very legalistic preaching.

This is something I am puzzled by. I am not stumped by the zeal or the strictness of Finney's religion...but by the insatiableness of it.

John the Baptist explained how to repent. Jonthan Edwards who was famous for giving his sermon-hardened congregation one homiletical face slap after another to waken them, would tenderly rejoice over true converts. Finney's design for revival seems unquenchable. Am I missing something?

When the grinding and milling of moral behavior over and over again is emphasized like an endless pursuit without any clear finish line or final satisfaction towards God's wrath, eventually the work of the Cross becomes an abstract platitude, and man's morality becomes the central issue in religion.

Can we say this method or approach to preaching is revivalism? That is to say, somewhere along the line, preaching with the earnest desire to see fervent saving faith, devolved into a routine of revivalism which by nature can not be satisfied.

I really have been genuinely curious about this aspect of Finney for a few years now.

MC

I am not suggesting that God simply 'extends mercy'. According to Paul in Rom 3 the reason that God can be both just and justifier is because God set forth Christ as a propitiation, thereby making it just for God to justify the sinner. The theme to earlier chapters of Romans is the law court.

Question: If men are able to have mercy upon others without demanding a payment, why can't God? Does He hold a grudge, that only a full payment will "remove the offence" in His eyes?

According to Psalm 22 Christ's death on was a 'prayer that was heard'. What you are doing is the equivalent of setting the imagery of the Shepherd against the imagery of a Vine; these are different but complementary images. Just as every picture of Christ is inadequate on its own so here images tumble one on another to fill out the fullness of what he achieved.
Pouring out his soul in intercession is another image of the events of Calvary.

No more than Christ became 'guilty of sin'. Penal substitution does not teach that Christ became 'guilty' but that he carried sin, not just its associated suffering as some kind of a visual aid to support the moral basis of government. The goat was not an example of ‘moral government’ showing that sin had consequences; it paid the price of death and bore away in its body the sins of Israel.

How exactly did Christ bear sin?

God can do anything he chooses to do but he has revealed himself to be a God who behaves in a way that is just and that he can remain just while justifying the ungodly because ‘justice divine’ was ‘satisfied.

God’s love is holy love and the cross is a demonstration of holy love. God is love and God is holy; these are not alternatives but aspects of his revealed character. [b]God could declare the sinner justified but that would not be ‘just’ unless it could be shown that God’s righteous requirements had been fulfilled.[/b]

Why is there punishment for sin?
To what end?
[b]Is it punishment for punishments sake?
Or is it for something greater?[/b]
Why is the punishment of sinners just?
[b]Is the concept of punishing sinners just "just because" and has no more explanation than "That's merely how God ordained it"?[/b]
No, there are reasons why punishing sinners is just.
And these reasons, these ends to be accomplished by the punishment of sinners, were all accomplished in Christ's death, apart from the punishment of any sinner, apart from any penalty dealt, and apart from any 'divine wrath'.

So there is no direct mapping between my offence and Christ's sacrifice? The question is not whether or not he would have suffered the same but whether or not he carried each one of my individual sins on his body on the tree?

You are not distinguishing between sins and the consequences of sins. If my unqualified child crashed my car, I have not crashed the car. I am not guilty of crashing the car.

I may have to bear the consequences and pay the bill for the ‘sin’ but I have not carried the sin itself.

The word to bear signifies taking the weight of the sin.

John Baptist does not say that Christ is ‘A suffering associated with sin bearer’ but that he is ‘Sin-bearer’.

In the figure the goat 'carried on its body' the sins of Israel, in the reality Christ carried our sins in his own body on the tree;

who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed. (1Peter 2:24 NKJV)

Compton, could you explain a little more what you mean?
I don't understand what you mean when you say, "Finney's design for revival seems unquenchable."

Hi Nile,

I was following up with what Robert was articulating. My impression is that, for Finney, repentence never leads to security in Christ. In fact the more you learn about Christ's utter perfection, you are not encouraged but overwhelmed. The grace you were promised yesterday has evaporated, and now you are worse off then then before because now you know more about the distance you have to cover by exertion.

For some people it becomes a sin to salt their food because such pleasure is selfish? I'm not hostile about accounts like this, only puzzled. Really, would Paul associate himself with this idea? (edit: Not, would he dissociate himself from those who abstain from spices, but would he himself uphold this practice as a worthy example for the Church?)

As a little boy I had a rubber band airplane that I would wind more and more, in a desire to see it go further and further.

Eventually the rubber band was wound so tight it snapped.

This is what I meant by 'Finney's design for revival'. I can more readily take his heart for revival but perhaps leave his theology and practice for it. Am I missing something?

Thanks brother in advance for any response you give to my comments. Unless you have any other questions specifically for me, I'll sit back and listen to the conversation now. My comments were only to relate to what I believe Robert was expressing, and are not really contributing to the ongoing substance of the dialogue here.

MC

Am I missing something?

I think that it is important to understand what Finney was trying to do by preaching on certain subjects. He was trying to break up the fallow ground in order that a person might bring forth fruit unto God. The 'plow', in effect, is the bringing before the mind the 'sins' we have committed or been practicing. It is thought that these sins have hardened the heart and fruitlessness has become the norm.

In an environment like this anything can become a sin. Consider this quote from one of his lectures:

[i]10. Robbing God. Think of the instances in which you have misspent your time, squandering the hours which God gave you to serve Him and save souls, in vain amusements or foolish conversation, in reading novels or doing nothing; cases where you have misapplied your talents and powers of mind; where you have squandered money on your lusts, or spent it for things which you did not need, and which did not contribute to your health, comfort, or usefulness. Perhaps some of you have laid out God's money for tobacco. I will not speak of intoxicating drink, for I presume there is no professor of religion here that would drink it, and I hope there is not one that uses that filthy poison, tobacco. Think of a professor of religion using God's money to poison himself with tobacco![/i]

If the historical view of the atonement be true, then these types of things become almost irrelevant and powerless to 'stir fallow ground'. Even though I think that it may be a good thing to do to allow God to point out areas in our lives that have become hardened, this process is repeated over and over again over time. Pretty soon the strategy takes on a life of it's own- and folk literally despair that they are not good enough because the whole focus of religion is on moralisms and legalisms.

In order to keep folk on a shakey foundation you have to remove both the atonement [i]and[/i] imputed righteousness. If Christ be my righteousness then I don't have to be preoccupied with whether or not I bought a piece of bubble gum or loafed around the house trying to rest. As much as I admire Finney, I have to point these things out because they are highly toxic. I have known of men to preach against drinking coffee because it had caffine in it. So little old ladies would dring hot water with cream and sugar lest they offend God.

I guess the frustrating thing for me is that it seems almost as if folk are not allowed to [i]rest[/i] in Christ. They have to all the time feel stirred up- worrying about if they are going to hell. In time this does not work. We have to serve God from a heart of love. Nit picking people to bring them into conviction is almost insane. The Holy Spirit will deal with folk Himself without us imposing all sorts of legalisms on their conscience.

When the grinding and milling of moral behavior over and over again is emphasized like an endless pursuit without any clear finish line or final satisfaction towards God's wrath, eventually the work of the Cross becomes an abstract platitude, and man's morality becomes the central issue in religion.

Compton, why should I write when you already speak my thoughts exactly? ;-)

I have read through this thread. The overall sense that I get from references about Finney’s teachings is that Christ is pushed back into obscurity. (in contrast to the NT, esp the epistles) Oh, sure, Christ may have done something in the past - and now we can tell each other, including potential converts that the penalty is paid, and we are off the hook. But, to me this legal “document” is impotent! It cannot in reality let us off the hook. Our consciences are not affected by legal documents.For me, the test of time has proved that to be true.

For years I had never heard about Finney, and yet I know that the effects of his and like-minded Christians’) teachings influenced many of us. These days we are reaping the fruit of such man-centered doctrines that were sewn in their hearts many years ago. I am constantly connecting with middle-aged Christians whose consciences just won’t let them rest in Christ. They have no peace. They are beating themselves up. Oh, sure, the theology worked in the past, when they/we had the strength to live the righteous life. But the strength is waning, and the churches do not have what they once had to keep the semblance of godliness functioning efficiently. (Maybe we were more like the Catholics than we thought!)

Surely Christ offered us more on the cross!

In all fairness, it may be easy to blame Finney for what is really an aspect of our sin nature: we don’t really want Christ to redeem us. We want to do it “all by ourselves” (as the toddler would say). And maybe THAT keeps Finney alive. Are we scapegoating the man?

So far in this thread I have seen many references to Christ rescuing man from God’s wrath. (taken from Old Covenant symbolism) But what about Christ rescuing us from the curse?

I am aware of the possibility of taking an aspect of a writer’s material at the expense of other parts to prove a point. So I ask, what does Finney teach about Christ rescuing us from the devil, the power of sin, or the law, or the curse “He will crush your head” (Gen. 3: 15), (Col. 2:13-15), putting to death our old person on the cross? What about the account of Hosea rescuing (ransom) Gomer from the clutches of evil (including hers)?

What does Finney teach about the new life in Christ? (Eph. 2:6)

Just appealing for a fair trial for Finney - the lazy way – without doing the investigation myself. (Shame on me!:-? )

Diane

The more we dig into this subject, it becomes evident that Finney and others who hold of Gov't of God view of the atonement are starting off with very different presuppositions. Consider this quote from Finney on atonement in 1856:

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. 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 lawgiver's firmness, integrity and love. The law being perfect, and being most essential to the good of his creatures, [u]God must not set aside its penalty without some equivalent influence to induce obedience.[/u]

What seems to be missing is the fact that God is personally offended by our sin. Sin is more more personal from God's perspective than what their atonement philosophy acknowledges.

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. (Exodus 21)

This is the revelation of God's concept of [i]equity[/i]. This is how God is going to judge the world.

And he shall judge the world in righteousness, he shall minister judgment to the people in [u]uprightness[/u].(Psalm 9:8)

'Uprightness' here is [i]meyshar[/i] and it is translated also as 'equal' and 'equity'. This passage is quoted by Paul in Acts 17:31 as the reason why men are commanded to repent. There is going to be a handing out, not in a general sense 'judgments', but full on repayment and retribution for each and every sin ever committed.

Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and [u]every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward[/u]; 3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; (Heb. 2)

This is one of the most fearsome passage in all of scripture. For those that reject Christ, theirs is an... [i]Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.[/i] [u]recompense[/u] of ALL of their sins. The word for "recompense of reward" is [i]misthapodosia[/i] and it means wages paid for working. This is where the saying, "there is a payday coming" originates.

Finney was a lawyer, but not an [i]accountant[/i]. God is keeping books on sins. He apparently has a Divine Ledger. And for sins to be remitted the payment has to be made. The books have to balance. Imagine if the next great revivalist were an certified public accountant? I work for a CPA. There is no such thing as being 2 cents off. Those books are scoured over until they sheets 'balance'. Jesus Christ paid [u]my[/u] sin debt. God visited upon Him for my sins.

A Governor may pardon a criminal; but debt/credit is different. When a debt is absorbed it comes out of somebodies pocket (so to speak). God has already said there is going to be a payout for each and every sin. Christ 'received' my payout. For those who reject Christ- [i]judgment is mine saith the Lord; I [u]will[/u] repay."[/i] The books are going to balance someday. This is what it means for Christ to 'bear' our sins. He took the payment I was owed.

Finney was a lawyer, but not an [i]accountant[/i]. God is keeping books on sins. He apparently has a Divine Ledger. And for sins to be remitted the payment has to be made. The books have to balance. [b]Imagine if the next great revivalist were an certified public accountant?[/b] I work for a CPA. There is no such thing as being 2 cents off. Those books are scoured over until they sheets 'balance'. Jesus Christ paid my sin debt. God visited upon Him for my sins.

What a grand statement! Could well extrapolate off this and recognize that a similar thread is running concurrently regarding [i]balance[/i] but I think it would have to do with perspective and perception of the definition being used.

It is interesting to note that really much of the ... fighting or maybe disputing if I may, is over these last 2 cents in a whole host of matters. All the while the sheet being already balanced ours often seems to be trying to figure out where the 'error' is (predestination- free will- security- etc. etc.) Well, not to digress on all this. Really wanted to just note an appreciation for the manner that this whole discussion has progressed. Very refreshing in it's forthcoming and honest examination, the charity amongst each other ...

My goodness! I can't believe the sentiments y'all are expressing about Finney!

In order to keep folk on a shakey foundation you have to remove both the atonement and imputed righteousness. If Christ be my righteousness then I don't have to be preoccupied with whether or not I bought a piece of bubble gum or loafed around the house trying to rest.

I guess the frustrating thing for me is that it seems almost as if folk are not allowed to rest in Christ. They have to all the time feel stirred up- worrying about if they are going to hell. In time this does not work. We have to serve God from a heart of love.

However, if you sin, then you certainly [i]should[/i] be very concerned and, I would expect, quite worked up.

Nit picking people to bring them into conviction is almost insane. The Holy Spirit will deal with folk Himself without us imposing all sorts of legalisms on their conscience.

Finney preached to sinners telling them to repent!

What seems to be missing is the fact that God is personally offended by our sin. Sin is more more personal from God's perspective than what their atonement philosophy acknowledges.

RobertW, have you ever forgiven anyone without demanding payment? Or saying to yourself, "well, they'll get what they deserve"?

Do you believe in mercy, or only cutthroat vindication?

I'm not talking about God, I'm talking about you.

If someone spits in your face, and they repent, would you demand that someone spit back in their face?

If someone defrauds you, and they repent, would you demand that they are defrauded back?

I certainly can forgive a brother who repents. Likewise, God doesn't hold grudges against those who repent. He genuinely [i]forgives[/i]. Christ's death make this forgiveness a good thing, and of much benefit to the kingdom of God! (edit: not to mention possible at all!)

...

Something I pointed out earlier, but wanted to mention again:

[b]No where in the Bible does it say anything about God's wrath being poured out on Jesus! God's wrath is never associated with Jesus![/b]

Don't believe it? Look it up! If you can find it, I'd surely like to know :-)

There is going to be a handing out, not in a general sense 'judgments', but full on repayment and retribution for each and every sin ever committed.

Right?

:-)

retribution for each and every sin ever committed.

Is this analogy not merely an attempt to symbolize the concrete symptoms of the sin condition - which is REALLY what Christ came to set us free from?

Diane

I just wanted to post some words straight from the horse's mouth, that is, Finney.

Who find fault with this?

...

[b]"The Rest of Faith"[/b]
IV. What is implied in this rest.

1. A complete cessation from all our own selfish works, the end of which is to promote our own interests, temporal or eternal.

2. It implies a cessation from all self-righteous efforts. By self-righteous efforts, I mean,

(1) All attempts to recommend ourselves to God by our own works.

(2) All efforts to avoid punishment, or escape from the wrath of God by any efforts of our own.

(3) All those things which originate in our own convictions, and are performed in the strength of our own resolutions without being influenced thereto by the love of God in our heart.

3. This rest implies a state of mind that feels no necessity for attempting anything in our own strength. There is a state of mind, which perhaps is better known by experience than described by words, in which an individual feels pressed with a necessity of doing something, and every thing in a manner which shall be acceptable to God. And yet, on account of his unbelief, he feels agonized with the thought that he is in no such sense strengthened by the Spirit of God, as shall, as a matter of fact, enable him, and cause him to do that which his convictions of duty demand of him. This is a distracting restless state of mind, and the exact opposite of the rest of faith. Faith so leans upon God, as to bring the mind into a state of sweet repose and confidence that God will help, and that there is no necessity for making any efforts in our own strength.

4. It implies exemption from all the carefulness induced by unbelief on every subject. Faith reposes in God for time and for eternity, for direction, and help, and provisions in temporal as well as spiritual matters. It excludes all carefulness, in the proper sense of that term, on every subject.

5. It implies exemption from the fear of death, and hell. Faith produces that perfect love that casteth out fear--the fear of future want--of the judgments of God--that we shall be overcome by our enemies spiritual or temporal--and of all that fear that hath torment.

6. It implies an exemption from a sense of condemnation. "There is no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit."

7. A rest from the reproaches of conscience. In a state of unbelief, conscience often inflicts grievous wounds upon the peace of the soul. But when we take possession of the rest of faith, the conscience is as quiet as a lamb.

8. It implies an exemption from being afflicted or distressed with the occurrences of life. The soul is able to meet with calmness and sweetness that which would otherwise throw the mind into a state of the utmost agitation and distress. By this I do not mean, as I have said above, that individuals will have no trials; but that this state of mind will enable them to pass through their trials with a composed and heavenly temper. Mrs. President Edwards says of herself, that for some years there were two trials which she thought she should be unable to bear. One was the loss of her husband's confidence, and ill treatment from him--the other was the loss of the confidence and respect of the people of the town in which they lived. But when she entered fully into the rest of faith, she declares, that it did not appear to her, as if those things could, in the least, affect her happiness or disturb the repose of her mind. It appeared to her as if she were as far above being discomposed by anything that could occur in the Providence of God, as the sun is high above the earth--that to be treated with the utmost disrespect by her husband--to be cast out by the people of the town to perish in the snow, would not break up the deep tranquillity and repose of her mind in God.

9. It implies exemption from the dominion of temptation. I have said, that in this life, we may always as a thing of course expect more or less temptation. But this rest is a state of mind in which temptation will not prevail. It will assail us, and make a greater or less impression upon our minds, i.e. it will in a greater or less degree agitate and ruffle our feelings in proportion to the strength of our faith.

10. Finally, and in a word, it implies exemption from the strength and dominion of sin in all its forms. The case supposed by the Apostle in the seventh chapter of Romans, to illustrate the influence of law over one who is carnal and sold under sin, is a striking exemplification of that state of slavery to lust and passion in which great multitudes, both in and out of the Church, are. And the striking transition from that state of mind into that described in the eighth chapter, exactly illustrates what I mean by an individual passing from a state of slavery and sin into a state of liberty and rest.

The Rest of Faith! What a beautiful article. Thanks Nile.

In an environment like this anything can become a sin. Consider this quote from one of his lectures:

10. Robbing God. Think of the instances in which you have misspent your time, squandering the hours which God gave you to serve Him and save souls, in vain amusements or foolish conversation, in reading novels or doing nothing; cases where you have misapplied your talents and powers of mind; where you have squandered money on your lusts, or spent it for things which you did not need, and which did not contribute to your health, comfort, or usefulness. Perhaps some of you have laid out God's money for tobacco. I will not speak of intoxicating drink, for I presume there is no professor of religion here that would drink it, and I hope there is not one that uses that filthy poison, tobacco. Think of a professor of religion using God's money to poison himself with tobacco!

If the historical view of the atonement be true, then these types of things become almost irrelevant and powerless to 'stir fallow ground'. Even though I think that it may be a good thing to do to allow God to point out areas in our lives that have become hardened, this process is repeated over and over again over time. Pretty soon the strategy takes on a life of it's own- and folk literally despair that they are not good enough because the whole focus of religion is on moralisms and legalisms.

Anything CAN become sin. Whatever isn't of faith is sin (from the bible).

Point 10 sounds a lot like something Zac Poonen would say.

I'm not really sure where you get the idea that people despair. At what point does Jesus Christ say "No, I won't help you there, you want to please me too much- it just isn't necessary." No, Jesus Christ helps you to fulfill all you desire to God.

I'd like to thank Nile as well. It is always a pleasure to be able to express questions in friendly conversation. Like others here, I do not wish to show up only to throw out 'objections'...I am not wanting to be a Finney 'prostestant.' So I appreciate the gracious atmosphere kept by everyone involved.

No where in the Bible does it say anything about God's wrath being poured out on Jesus! God's wrath is never associated with Jesus!

Brother, my understandng along these lines is not that God's wrath was asscociated with Jesus per se, but that God's wrath was directed at our sin that was upon him. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. Just as the priests had no anger toward a poor scapegoat, God of course had no wrath upon an obedient son on the basis of his own perfect account. Yet, Jesus took on more then his own account at the cross.

I think an acute sense of justice, combined with an abhorrence to substition's 'wrongful execution', is central to Finney aligning his gospel towards moral decisions rather then a decision of faith. Yet, and I mean no sensational disrespect here, I have suspected that such a moral-centered platform in the Church, rather then a Christ-centered platform, has opened the door to concentrating only the moral platforms and not Christ himself in many streams of modern Christianity. In other words, the great irony of Finney's moral urgency is that there is an inevitable shifting to man-centered morality which is the basis for liberalism in and out of the church. Good Finney would find today some strange company in the liberal, the feminist, and the post-modern Christian who argue that the penal or substituationary view of the cross amounts to cosmic child abuse. A moral person asks a quite sensible question; how can mankind trust a God who would torture and punnish his own innocent son? They conclude, again quite resonably, that if God was good, he would have good will enough to simply forgive those who repent.

Yet if God's forgiveness was simply a matter of his good will towards all of us, then why would Jesus, who knew no sin, need to become sin for us? Ron and Robert could do better then I in exploring this theme in both testaments of scripure...but nevertheless I am able to see a simple idea that overrides Finney's acute sense of right and wrong: namely that Jesus took my sin to the cross, and recieved my wrath accordingly.

Now within this atonement, I can more readily accept Finney's commitment to moral and spiritual purity. I think most of us who are drawn to Finney are drawn because of his seriousness of heart towards the Lord. We are drawn before we are confronted by the implications of his denial of imputed righteousness.

Blessings,

MC :-)

I'd like to thank Nile as well. It is always a pleasure to be able to express questions in friendly conversation. Like others here, I do not wish to show up only to throw out 'objections'...I am not wanting to be a Finney 'prostestant.' So I appreciate the gracious atmosphere kept by everyone involved.

If I may reply a few words to your thoughtful post.

Brother, my understandng along these lines is not that God's wrath was asscociated with Jesus per se, but that God's wrath was directed at our sin that was upon him. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. Just as the priests had no anger toward a poor scapegoat, God of course had no wrath upon an obedient son on the basis of his own perfect account. Yet, Jesus took on more then his own account at the cross.

You said, "but that God's wrath was directed at our sin that was upon him."
This makes no sense to me.
How was our sin upon Him, such that God could direct His wrath at it?

Yet, and I mean no sensational disrespect here, I have suspected that such a moral-centered platform in the Church, rather then a Christ-centered platform, has opened the door to concentrating only the moral platforms and not Christ himself in many streams of modern Christianity.

They conclude, again quite resonably, that if God was good, he would have good will enough to simply forgive those who repent.

Yet if God's forgiveness was simply a matter of his good will towards all of us, then why would Jesus, who knew no sin, need to become sin for us?

These are just some of the reasons for Christ's death. Christ did so much more! He put an end to the Old Covenant and brought in the New Covenant!

No longer are we under the letter of the Law - but the Spirit of the Law!
No more do fight wars with people - now we wage war with the devil!
No longer do have heroic judges and warriors - now we are all endued with power from on high!
There is not a mortal high priest - but an Everlasting High Priest!
Before there was a tribe of priests - now we are all a royal priesthood!
God's people used to be one nation - now we are of all nations!
It used to be Israel - now it is the Church! Oh the wonderful Church!
No longer do we go out to subdue nations by sword and bow - now we go out under the Great Commission, baptizing and making disciples in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!
The Kingdom of God is not advanced by natural birth - but by a Second Birth!
AMEN!!!

Do you see how radically different this new system is from the old? It is all because of Christ that this is possible =)

...

Now an open question to any and all:

What is meant by, "Christ bore our sins"?

Nile

However, if you sin, then you certainly should be very concerned and, I would expect, quite worked up.

The challenge that I'm bringing out in pointing out Finney's view of atonement, is that he reserved the right to determine through biblical principal what sin actually is. In fact, he has an entire lecture on "Doubtful actions being sinful." In this lecture he extrapolates 'doubt' from a practitioner from a host of behaviors and actions that he does not consider 'spiritual' or 'beneficial'. This is how [u]fun[/u] came to be viewed as sin.

I am not being unfair to Finney in my writings. These are things he has taught and have affected my upbringing as a child and my ancestors understanding of religion. I cannot trace them direct to him, but the beliefs in many cases are almost identical to certain preaching that took place pre- 1950 in Missouri in holiness circles.

The same kind of nit picking Jesus did? Jesus said if you call someone a fool you are guilty enough to go to hell.
And Paul? He said if you are bitter, you are defiled.

But this is not what we are referring to. Scripture spells out what you mention in black and white. But this is taken to a different level in the lectures.

Finney (Lecture III 1836 DOUBTFUL ACTIONS ARE SINFUL):

[i]I might refer to tea and coffee. It is known generally, that these substances are not nutritious at all, and that nearly eight millions of dollars are spent annually for them in this country. [u]Now, will any man pretend that he does not doubt the lawfulness of spending all this money for that which is of no use, and which are WELL KNOWN, to all who have examined the subject, to be positively injurious, intolerable to weak stomachs, and as much as the strongest can dispose of?[/u] And all this, while the various benevolent societies of the age are loudly calling for HELP to send the gospel abroad and save a world from hell! To think of the church alone spending millions upon their tea tables, is there no doubt here?[/i]

Here, he injects doubt into the drinking of tea and coffee wounding the consciences of those that would have afore drank these things with no pain of conscience at all. His influence as a man of God is powerful- if Finney says it's a sin, some would believe, IS a sin. But this is highly unfair and intrudes into the workings of the Holy Spirit to convict individuals of their behaviors.

Nile, I appreciate you posting “The Rest of Faith” It contains wonderful promises.

The article includes a testimony of a lady who discovered that resting in faith gave her peace. However, her troubles did not relate to her own sin or her enmity with God:

……which she thought she should be unable to bear. One was the loss of her husband's confidence, and ill treatment from him--the other was the loss of the confidence and respect of the people of the town in which they lived. But when she entered fully into the rest of faith, she declares, that it did not appear to her, as if those things could, in the least, affect her happiness or disturb the repose of her mind.

Regarding the sin problem, I wonder how, according to Finney, the rest of faith is attained, and how it relates to Christ’s words: “Come to me and I will give you rest….” :

But when we take possession of the rest of faith, the conscience is as quiet as a lamb.

I wouldn’t mind reading an expounded description of this process:

an individual passing from a state of slavery and sin into a state of liberty and rest.

Diane

RobertW, have you ever forgiven anyone without demanding payment? Or saying to yourself, "well, they'll get what they deserve"?

I have forgiven because God has said we must forgive. The contrast between the offenses against me and those against God are quite sharp.

Notice how in Matthew 18 God sets forth a 'picture' of what man's sin debt looks like:

...and he having begun to take account, there was brought near to him one debtor of a myriad of talents,.. (Matt 18 YLT)

This is an innumerable number of talents. This is a picture of our debt before God.

And, that servant having come forth, found one of his fellow-servants who was owing him [u]an hundred denaries[/u], and having laid hold, he took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that which thou owest. .

God is the primary offended party in all sin. Under the Old Testament there was an eye for eye, tooth for tooth justice. This is the revelation of God in demonstrating to us the necessity of equity or a bringing of "the scales" into balance. It demonstrates that for sins to be remitted the price has to be paid. It is not like our American judicial court system in which a person is charged with (2) class B felonies and a class C, but can plead away a class b and c and serve time for the single class b. There is an actual accounting going on in which justice has to be served upon the offender.

If we err and charge God with being excessively harsh in compiling the sins of sinners, beating the one with a few stripes and another with many, then we strip the scriptures of God's purpose in sending them to an everlasting hell. Moreover, certain circumstances only add to the accountability of a sinner before God. There are 'aggravated circumstances' that are factored in to every crime against God. More light = more accountability = more stripes for the transgression.

Under the New Testament dispensation we can forgive a person as individuals because of the great mercy God has shown to us. This is the essence of Eph. 4:32. It was for Christ's sake that God has forgiven me. And I for the sake of Christ's sacrifice applied on my behalf can and must forgive others. It is the only reasonable thing to do.

No where in the Bible does it say anything about God's wrath being poured out on Jesus! God's wrath is never associated with Jesus!

When we speak of God's wrath we are not referring to a God that gets set off as if He has a temper problem. This is God's posture towards sin. There is a sense in which He is angry with the wicked. When we speak of wrath being poured out- it must needs be an expression of Divine retribution for sin. It is the 'payment' of the wages man has been earning. Depending on how much light the wage earner has- he/she gains an 'increase' in the wages proportional to the knowledge they sinned with.

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.(Isaiah 53:5)

'Bruised' is the Hebrew [i]daka[/i] and it means to beat to pieces. This connects with I Peter 2:24.

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Christ took our sins as His own and paid the penalty for them. There is something very personal here. It was 'our' sins that did it. Not a general transgression of the law demanding Christ be made an example before our eyes; but a genuine receiving of my punishment for [u]my[/u] transgressions.

Why? Why is such a thing necessary?
What does it accomplish?
Since one man did wrong (and made others suffer), now we're going to double the suffering by making him suffer too?
What is the end of it all?
Suffering for suffering's sake?
Nonsense.
Punishment has a purpose.
If that purpose can be accomplished aside from the suffering of the offender, then no punishment is needed.

Right?

What makes the sinner who rejects Christ the more worthy of this retribution is that they trod under foot the blood of Christ and counted His sufferings as an unholy thing. This, in effect, has to be the greatest sin of all. So not only has the atonement not been applied to his/her sins, but an addition and exceedingly more heinous crime has been added. This is like biting the hand that is extended in mercy.

Nonetheless, this is the clear revelation of scripture:

For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;(Heb. 2)

The writer to the Hebrews here is serving up a solemn warning. He contrasts what we know happened in the old Testament when folk despised Moses law. They died without mercy under two or three witnesses. "How much more shall not we escape... if we turn away from Him that spoke from Heaven." Hebrews speaks over and over of a 'better' covenant established with 'better' promises. But the danger is in rejecting it. It is exceedingly more dangerous than dying without mercy. Our minds cannot comprehend what it is to suffer a more 'sorer' punishment than death without mercy.

RobertW, I appreciate your posts and believe I understand what your position is. I agree with much of what you said. The point I was making with the forgiveness thing missed the mark; I might revisit it later.

There is something very personal here. It was 'our' sins that did it. Not a general transgression of the law demanding Christ be made an example before our eyes; but a genuine receiving of my punishment for my transgressions.

...

How exactly did Christ bear our sin?
Did He become guilty before God?
Did God trick Himself into thinking Christ had committed the sins?

Nile

RobertW, you seem to have missed my point.
I wasn't asking what makes a person guilty enough to be punished.

What does punishment accomplish?
What makes divine retribution a good thing?
WHY punishment? Why not foot-massages and ice-crem Sundays?

Why? Why is such a thing necessary?
What does it accomplish?
Since one man did wrong (and made others suffer), now we're going to double the suffering by making him suffer too?
What is the end of it all?
Suffering for suffering's sake?
Nonsense.
Punishment has a purpose.
If that purpose can be accomplished aside from the suffering of the offender, then no punishment is needed.

Right?

Nile, I wonder if “The Atonement" by Albert Barnes is similar to “Atonement” by D. Bercott – where he explains that the purpose of Christ’s death was not so much to satisfy God’s wrath as to deliver us from Satan:

“The Lord... gave himself for our sins to rescue us from this present evil age (the world).” Gal 1:3, 4
“ ..by his death he might destroy him who hold the power over death – that is, the devil.” Heb. 2:15

Goes back to the Garden of Eden:
“He will crush your head” (Gen. 3: 15)

In other words, Christ bound the strong man.
The ransom price was paid to the kidnapper. (Satan)
“Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” Acts. 20:28

What sort of world would we live in today if everyone who repented of evil on the day of court was let off the hook?

But then, what could mere divine forgiveness do - even if backed up by "gold bullion". I don't think Christ died so God could flex his muscle to the world.

What is meant by, "Christ bore our sins"?

” God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written code, with its regulations that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. “(Col. 2:13-15)

If Christ rendered the law inoperable by his death, why does Finney place so much focus on law – even adding many to God’s word?

Diane

One more question I thought of:

How exactly was Christ punished for our sin according to Penal Substitution?

He obviously didn't suffer in Hell as we would have.

Nile

Nile, I wonder if “The Atonement" by Albert Barnes is similar to “Atonement” by D. Bercott – where he explains that the purpose of Christ’s death was not so much to satisfy God’s wrath as to deliver us from Satan:

If Christ rendered the law inoperable by his death, why does Finney place so much focus on law – even adding many to God’s word?

Finney adds nothing to the law. He applies the law to many circumstances, but he never adds to the law.

The Law is this:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Nile

Good afternoon all,

I thought I would be less visible in this thread but as I reflected on the latest posts here, I finally became aware of a much more basic question underlying all of my previous ones.

Subjectivity...It is not preferrable for us to place our faith in subjective things. This is ironic I suppose, for me especially. Many people after meeting me find that I am somewhat of a laid back 'free spirit'. I imagine I should feel right at home with uncertainty and non-specificity. But in fact, it's quite the opposite. Subjective measurements disturb me...I know they can't be trusted. They keep me up at night;)

In search of fearless absolutes we come to Finney...afterall who will be more honest in telling us the truth then this man!? (That stern unflinching portrait...) Yet Finney, a sharp legal mind, ironically had little difficulty establishing new legal precedents out of his own mere opinion. Perhaps this is because his original premise itself hinged on highly subjective experiences at the altar and not on the objective facts of the Gospel.

Each sinner is instructed in the saving virtue of repentence...but repentence amounts to different things to each person. For one person, it amounts to an Ebeneezer Scrooge conversion where they stop being stingy and greedy and become gracious of heart. Yet to another person, the converted Scrooge would seem to be yet another false convert, a rich businessman attending a bouguise church instead of selling his firm and going to a third world country. Indeed, many of our discussions here on SI are centered on what constitutes true repentence.

Irony of ironies...Finney's exacting pressure to wring the last drop of repentence and expressed sorrow from the sinner has left a revivalist legacy within the evangelical church where inexact subjective experience is more authentic then biblical doctrine. This is the foundation of post-modernity; that faith is not made meaningful by any objective truth, but by the deepest sincerity.

That Finney was a lawyer makes this point all the more a paradox. Today we accept post-modern artists, and poets...and sadly even theologians. But no one would want to hire a post-modern lawyer to defend their case. Afterall, the fellow may be sincere but whose law is he familiar with?

One Christian man came to Christ repenting of his adultery and a marriage is saved. He will stand today in church and with tears tell about how Jesus saved him. Yet another Christian, who is more moved by compassion then fidelity, sees that same married man as yet another decieved worlding who works all week to hold down a day job and pay his mortgage instead of feeding the poor.

We trust warm sincerity and mistrust cold objectivity. But who would want a sincere and tearful engineer, who uses whatever metric system he decides is best, to design the very bridge we trust to carry us to work everyday? We secretly admire the post-modern's Christians replacement of faith alone with social justice as the central concern of the Gospel, but who would hire a post-modern brain surgeon who doesn't believe in objective medicine, just because he donates to the poor?

Of course these are silly examples. But they show how mushy we have become when experience, which is a fine thing, is allowed to take precedent over facts.

How, brother Nile, does one live with the uncertainty and subjectivity of Finney's plan of self-justification? Is the measure of our repentence the only measure of our certainty? Is there anything we've done that assures us of our salvation this day? Have you ever felt peace in your conscience, only to become captive to the consciense of another Christian who holds your witness in contempt? Indeed, there are zealous brethren here today who would drop the gavel on us right now...they rightfully point out that we do not measure up to themselves or another great hero of the faith. What is our defense brother? More repentence...or the cross?

Of course I am not against sincerity...or even tears. Yet is this what we stand upon in the day of judgement? I'm talking more personal now...how do we cope with the uncertainty of salvation by sanctification?

Blessings,

MC

when experience, which is a fine thing, is allowed to take precedent over facts.

The solution is not to discount experience, but to let his Spirit and the Word evaluate experiences (rather than our natural mind): “The SPIRIT himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.” Rom. 8:16 Of course, this scripture can’t be applied to the unregenerate - that’s why we have lawyers.

Near the beginning of Finney’s Revival Lectures, I see his diagnosis and solution:
“But it is excited worldly desires, appetites, and feelings that prevent true Christianity – the human will is, in a sense, enslaved by fleshly and worldly desires. It is therefore necessary for God to awaken people to a sense of guilt and danger and thus produce an opposite excitement of feeling and desires.This counter-feeling breaks the power of worldly desire and leaves the will free to obey God.

.... and ... (NOTE THIS:)

There is nothing in true Christianity beyond ordinary power of nature. When people become obedient to God, they are not enabled to exert themselves in ways they weren't able to before. They only exert in a different way the powers they had before...”
That just doesn’t sound like Romans, or Ephesians, or Galatians …. or Jesus - ie,the new birth, life in Christ. "the incomparibly great power for us who believe" Eph. 1:19

It doesn’t address our core fallen nature, just the symptoms. So the treatment is merely symptomatic, and change can only occur by inducing guilt. Doesn’t that sound like the way of religion in general: ex: the Catholics, the Mormons, the Jehovah Witnesses, and protestants, social culture, and the gov’t. The Spirit of God is substituted with laws and legalism, which is fuelled by guilt.

Interestingly legalism existed in both my Calvinistic and Armenian backgrounds. I think the problem has more to do with drifting from God and living in the flesh than with the theologies of Finney or Calvin, or Santa Claus (who is a great guy, but legalistic). I agree with my agnostic friends: All religions lead to the same place.

So how does the fact that Jesus was punished for our sins (ie was the guilt payment) fix our sin problem?
How does KNOWING this fact affect our sin problems?

(Of course, that fact is now under scrutiny)

Diane

Hey MC,

Your post is genuine and humble...a real blessing.

Of course I am not against sincerity...or even tears. Yet is this what we stand upon in the day of judgement? I'm talking more personal now...how do we cope with the uncertainty of salvation by sanctification?

By living in the now and not in the past.

Look, I want to get away from all this theological jargon and rambling and get down to business. The rubber meets the road hard. I don't agree with all the terms you've used to describe my position and yada yada yada, but I'm not going to debate that right now.

You've been real, I'll be real.

The truth is, I have no uncertainty about my salvation. I have no anxiety over doing what is right and being holy, even though my standards of right and wrong are of the strictest on this forum. I don't fret about staying sinless and I don't lie in bed thinking, "What if I didn't repent of some sin??!?" I go to school 5 days a week, work 2 days a week, disciple and witness extensively, read and pray and stack in the dishes every night.

God has showed me what is right and wrong, and if He's showed you something different then so be it. I follow what I've been shown. And if I'm not, then I know it, and I'm miserable until I repent and turn to God whole-heartedly.

But I know that right now I am following God and that I love Him as much as I am able to. I will do anything for God, and have done many things in the past only because I love God.

Right now I have a perfectly clean conscience, which I have kept clean for months now. I have done [i]everything[/i] my conscience has said to do. I'm not saying that I have always followed my conscience. I'm saying that my conscience holds nothing against me.

I know that I lack wisdom and knowledge and I know that I need more fear of the Lord. I am seeking God for these things.

Jesus is my Lord and savior. I wish people would stop accusing me and those similarly minded of having a works based salvation and trusting in our own righteousness. I couldn't care less about all of my good works and holiness. It is nothing compared to Jesus and what He did. When I'm distressed and confused, I don't sit back and say, "Well Matt, be assured - you are a good and righteous person!" Nonsense!!! I tell myself of the goodness of God and His love towards me in Jesus Christ, who died that I might be forgiven!!! Please, I wish this accusation would stop.

The things I say on this forum I say because I have become convinced of them through every divinely ordained medium. Bible, prayer, creation, conscience, preaching, teaching, fellowship, hardship, and persecution. I see the things I talk about worked out in my life.

It seems all so simple to me, I have trouble seeing how others don't understand.

1. Love God with all your being,
2. Which is possible to do,
3. And is required for salvation.

Not to mention it is the foundation of Christianity!

Enough rambling. Hopefully you can glean something out of all this mess.

Glory to God.

The truth is, I have no uncertainty about my salvation. I have no anxiety over doing what is right and being holy, even though my standards of right and wrong are of the strictest on this forum.

You may well have no anxiety today, but when death is staring you in the face you will well desire to know that things are right betwixt you and God. I know of a woman I met in a nursing home who was of the strictest brand of holiness up into her 70's. As she saw the grave approaching she began to wonder if she was fit for heaven. Here was one of the 'holiest' women I ever saw in my life. But she started saying things to me like, "I sure hope I make it (to heaven)." And this is the madness of salvation by sanctification. She lived her entire life for God and did not have any real assurance of salvation. While she had her health and the thought of God's throne were afar off- she was at peace. But as it approached she slowly began to go insane. The last time I ever saw Rosie she was in a caged hospital bed. A woman of God driven insane by the fear that she did not measure up.

If Finney's doctrine be true then one sin can send my soul to hell. If I repent not of the last sin I commit- I am damned. How could a man cry ABBA to a father like that? If I had damed one of my children for one transgression I had been called the most vile of father's and rightly so. How are we to reckon with a Father that would damn one of His sons as if it were a lite thing? Keep in mind that I do not believe in eternal security and have lived an 'Oberlin' theology my whole life. I have lived it long enough to foresee a cage for myself if I held the theological course I was on.

For this cause, having not believed they could live the life, some in my family have left off following Christ and figured it best just to try to repent just before death. They saw no reason to serve a God that left them one sin away from abandonment and one sin away from the same grounds as a full-on sinner. One cousin of mine was so gripped by this fear that he yielded himself to the doctrine of unconditional eternal security.

It seems all so simple to me, I have trouble seeing how others don't understand.

1. Love God with all your being,
2. Which is possible to do,
3. And is required for salvation.

Understand that we understand full well that we are to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbor as ourselves. In fact, the love of God has been shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost that has been given to us. What we cannot understand is how reading a novel (as Finney has said)is an infraction or some evidence that I don't fully love God and is a sin. Or if I drink a glass of tea I don't love my neighbor in a third world country that is starving to death because I could have sent that money to them and drank only ice water. This is not a mocking comment I am making; this is actual Finney lecture material. And there is no short supply of it.

The truth is- a moral's based expression of religion is trying to be the 'life support system' that only breath back in the carcass can fully attain. A person must have the Holy Spirit operating in their life. It is God's job to deal with me about trivial matters- not some other man. God knows what I need to deal with and if I am sensitive to God [u]He[/u] will show me. What Compton was trying to show (if I understand him right) is that men do not have the authority to press upon others their own personal convictions. And then to turn and suggest the person is sinning (which means they have lost their justification before God) if they act [i]other[/i] than Finney suggests. Are we judged by another man's conscience? If Finney did not teach that if someone drinks tea or coffee they are going to hell I do not understand his doctrine. It is a simple connect the dots. Tea = sin. Sin = hell. Keep in mind I have never once tasted coffee and do not drink tea. But am I damned for drinking a Pepsi or reading a novel or watching a movie? I trow not.

Jesus is my Lord and savior. I wish people would stop accusing me and those similarly minded of having a works based salvation and trusting in our own righteousness. I couldn't care less about all of my good works and holiness. It is nothing compared to Jesus and what He did. When I'm distressed and confused, I don't sit back and say, "Well Matt, be assured - you are a good and righteous person!" Nonsense!!! I tell myself of the goodness of God and His love towards me in Jesus Christ, who died that I might be forgiven!!! Please, I wish this accusation would stop.

The question is, when you sin do you feel that God's wrath abides over you at that very moment? Do you believe at that moment that you are on the same legal grounds with God as would be a full-on sinner? This is what Finney taught. This is what I reject.

This is why the focus is on his view of the atonement. Either I am standing naked and ashamed before God or I am clothed in the white robes of the righteousness of Christ. As sure as Adam and Eve needed to be clothed to cover either the evidence or the revelation of their sinfulness; I need to be clothed in the righteousness of Christ. Innocent animals lost their lives to make those skins that covered man's nakedness. And Christ gave His life that I might be clothed in His innocence. My standing before God can never be anything other than this. No matter how low my conscience lies down- that state of my conscience does not justify me before God.

Every time I come before God it is the same way- by the blood of Christ. At no time will I ever be able to stand before God in this life and declare "I am ready to stand in my own goodness". At no time will I declare to God, "no need for the covering this time." If any man comes- he comes by the blood of Christ. That is all we are saying. My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness. In myself I stand before God in filthy rags - compared to God's righteousness. I doubt there is a soul on earth that would venture into God's presence apart from the blood of sprinkling.

I don't know about everyone else, but when I draw near to God I am made woefully aware of the sharp contrast between who God is and who I am. He is HIGH and EXALTED and holy beyond compare. When men come into His presence they are filled with awe. Dare I come to God with a clear conscience as my covering? If my heart condemn me not- God is greater than my heart and knows all things. God is standing ready to judge the very thoughts and intents of our hearts. Things that are so deep and mysterious that it will take Him to sort them out. Shall I venture before God as if I had even come by the right motivation? Hell is a refuge for man if he would have to stand before God in his own goodness.

It was not until Isaiah saw God in Isaiah 6 that Uzziah's leprosy and subsequent death made any sense to him. He must have asked God many times, Why? Why did Uzziah have to be judged like that? Just because he went into the Temple unworthily? But when he heard the thunder of the voice of the Seraphim and the sight of the doorposts shaking in their foundations it all came together. Now I know why a man does not just go running into the presence of our God. WOE IS ME! I am undone! before Isaiah came into God's presence he had confidence towards God- but there is something about the glory of God that sets man's conceptions aright. I dare not declare my own goodness- let the blood that speaketh better things than that of Abel- speak for me.

Good morning all,

Thanks again Nile for listening patiently. It's worth emphasizing that what I was describing is what I feel like when trying to 'wear' Finney, and asking you what feel like. I am not trying to make assertions for everyone else, though I do believe I am able to make some connections in some cases between Finney's revivalism beliefs, and current behavior in some movements within the Church at large today. But these are just my opinion, and Nile's noted complaint against the terms and modern movements I associate with Finney are understandable.

In regards to these connections, Diane asked if Finney's theology is really to blame for the subjectivity and uncertainty in the various and conflicting moral imperitives vying for attention in the Church today. I think so, but not uniquely or exclusively so, as shown by Diane's observation of all human religion. As Ron commented at the onset of this thread, Finney's theology was more an elaboate and articulate human reasoning on fairness. In this sense, it might be that I am using poor Finney as the archetype for a broader more basic problem addressed by most religions; namely...how do we become worthy of God's approval?

Robert stated pretty well below where I was coming from. Regardless of Finney's finer theology, if when it comes down to it, if his opinion of tea and coffee must affect my conscience, then the course that I choose towards pleasing God is quite subjective indeed. Now, once we establish that Finney's best moral exertions must become mine, then where should I stop? Once Finney has passed away, who else must I become captive to? The liberal? The conservative? They both offer the most convicting points.

Enter the 20th and 21st century when there are other issues besides tea and coffee to worry about. (There were in the 19th century too.) There are as many sincere and pursuasive moral voices in the church today as there are movements...whose consciense should I be captive to today? (Indeed, some would say, with a measure of pursuasion, that my very existance as an American is immoral and unfair in this 21st century.)

I remember a clever quote about Martin Luther, saying his problem was that he was too good, to sincere of a Catholic. In other words he actually tried to live out the beliefs of the Roman Church with an honest and self-aware conscience and it brought him to dispair.

Perhaps like Luther, it is my introspective tendency to weigh every moral complaint about me. I must consider not just the critiques of trusted friends, but also my enemies who point out valid flaws in my character or behavior. And under Finney's scheme I would have little ability, and should offer little resistance to refuse their authority in my life. But often these voices conflict with one another...

Brother Nile, I do appreciate your patience here. It needs to be said how much I esteem your convictions, and would enjoy continued conversation with you in the future on this subject. Whether intuitively, or inductively each of our different make-ups arrive at conclusions and convictions differently I suppose. However, as Robert soberingly pointed out, we do eventually come to the same place in life...death being the great common denominator between all cultures and consciences. Death tests the faith we have been living. As I come to understand myself more and more, not just in light of God's holiness but even in light of the finer people around me, death will be a most unwelcome event to me without Christ's righteousness clothing me.

Blessings,

MC

RobertW, I have only read your first reply so far, so let me reply to that in the few minutes I have.

You may well have no anxiety today, but when death is staring you in the face you will well desire to know that things are right betwixt you and God.

If Finney's doctrine be true then one sin can send my soul to hell. If I repent not of the last sin I commit- I am damned.

Such a person doesn't go to heaven.

If you fear yourself turning into such a person later in life, after having weathered the storms and grown in maturity and wisdom, well...think, what you like, but I have no doubts of turning on my God! And if I do, I ought to be damned worse than the worse criminal, for I knew the light and rejected it!

What we cannot understand is how reading a novel (as Finney has said)is an infraction or some evidence that I don't fully love God and is a sin.

Do you live by the Spirit and love God when reading a novel?
This is no loaded question, you're free to answer how you like. If you say yes then I won't question it. If you say no then live accordingly. I personally do not read novels, and I think most read them selfishly, but it is not beyond imagination that one could read a novel lea by the Spirit.

gtg to class. more later.

Nile

Brother Nile, I do appreciate your patience here. It needs to be said how much I esteem your convictions, and would enjoy continued conversation with you in the future on this subject.

I wanted to second these thoughts. :-)

I know everything is right between me and God now. I'll know tomorrow if everything is right between me and God. This isn't a guessing game.

My point is, one does not think as seriously and closely at these things until death draws near. Over time, Oberlin theology may well lead us down a path where we strive more and more to please God or 'love him' until as Finney, you totally stop even cutting your hair and beard in your old age to remain in compliance with the law. Look at pictures of him when he was young and then when he was old. Finney did nothing without there being some spiritual or legal significance. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that he may well have had Lev. 19:27 in mind.

Nile, I typically shy away from Calv/Arm type of threads. However, your posts caught my eye and so I am hanging out here. I want to learn more about (and from) this clever, God-fearing 19 yo engineering student, and see what drives his faith. In many ways my testimony at 19 parallels yours. Except for, I would not have had the confidence to post so articulately as you do – and in front of “the spiritual giants”! Way to go!

For me, the passing of time changed things. Some 20 + years later circumstances dissolved my ability to maintain any kind of righteousness in any aspect of my life, including my (unconscious) trust in them. The endowments of my youth vanished, and so I assumed that I could no longer please God. A dreadful hell that was! However, the loss led me to new gains in Christ. (I'm not convinced Finney would have led me there)

It seems like you are leaving the door open for God to keep on working in your life and transforming your mind (Rom. 12:2). It doesn't seem to me that you are a Finney die-hard, but are eager to put God first in your life, not just the words of one man. On the positive note: I think Finney does provide needed dynamite for the sleepy church - like when he points out that we are not passive instruments, but should make full use of our God-given enablements.

Years ago when I read that, I said “Amen”, but now, when I read that again, I wonder what enablements he is primarily referring to: our natural strength, or our “spiritual blessings in the heavenly realms” (Eph. 1:7, 2 Pet. 1:3-8) It seems like he is a naturalist - and for me, that only worked for a season.

(It would be interesting comparing the life stories and driving philosophies of others - like Spurgeon, Andrew Murray, Hudson Taylor, etc.)

Diane

RobertW wrote:

Brother Nile, I do appreciate your patience here. It needs to be said how much I esteem your convictions, and would enjoy continued conversation with you in the future on this subject.

I wanted to second these thoughts. :-)

Ah...thank you both. It's good discussing with you all also.
As we all know, it's a difficult thing to balance a firm conviction with gentleness and meekness. I defintely haven't mastered the skill, and almost always read my posts and think, "I've come across being so cold and unloving...how could I have said this better?"
Thank you all for being patient and looking past foolishenss.

Now to discuss some more...

The question is, when you sin do you feel that God's wrath abides over you at that very moment? Do you believe at that moment that you are on the same legal grounds with God as would be a full-on sinner? This is what Finney taught. This is what I reject.

I think many things are not sin which others do (although I also think many things are sin which others don't!). For example, I don't think it is wrong to not be in an estatic state of joy all the time, or that it is wrong to have an ice-cream with the family once in a while.

I also believe that if a Christian succombs to sin, repentance from sin can and should be swift. For example, suppose I am lazy one day. Once I come to my senses I might say, "I have been lazy this day...Lord forgive me, I won't be lazy tomorrow!" I know I am forgivenn and in good standing with God, but tomorrow will tell if my repentance is genuine. If it is not, then something more drastic needs done, for I deceived myself when I said, "I won't be lazy tomorrow" and am liable to deceive myself again. I must make every effort, strengthed by faith in God and the by the grace He gives, to genuinly repent. Nothing could be more important!
This is not a matter of couting the death of Christ worthy enough to cover me, it is a matter of self-deception. "I say I know Him, but how do I know that I know Him?" I know because I keep His commandments. That is straight scripture.

The question is, when you sin do you feel that God's wrath abides over you at that very moment?

What I mean is this: Look at Romans 1 and look at the wrath of God. What I notice is this: the wrath of God that is poured out upon them is nothing supernatural. It is the natural consequences of their actions. For God, having the designed the universe for good and not evil, has built into the fabric of the universe the laws of good and evil. This should be self-evident. Adultery, fornication, drunkness, violence, murder, anger, bitterness, envy, selfishness - all these things wreck society and cause great harm to everyone. That is how God designed the world, and I might farther and say that is how good and evil are defined.

Seeing this, it is apparent that the moment I sin I begin to abide in the wrath of God. The wheels of my death, destruction, and torment begin to turn, being forced by the very fabric of creation itself.

Do you believe at that moment that you are on the same legal grounds with God as would be a full-on sinner?

An important distinction: This righteousenss that is manifest in us does not save us. It is grounds for salvation, but it does not save us. Consider: what are we being saved from? Our sins in the past. The only thing that saves from those is Jesus's blood. The condition of this salvation is turning from all sin and living unto God. Doing that, you have nothing to be saved of except sins of the past, which nothing cleanses except the blood of Jesus. Being righteouss in thought and deed is a condition of salvation (from sin of the past) not the grounds of it.

One last note, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
Cleanse us. You cannot be cleansed of sins in the future, but only sins of the past. Likewise with forgiveness. I friend I talked to recently told me he has always been confused about why we must continually ask for forgivenss is Christ paid for all his sins "past, present, and future" 2 thousand years ago. The reason is because we are not forgiven until we confess and repent, and you cannot confess and repent of sin you haven't yet committed.

My standing before God can never be anything other than this. No matter how low my conscience lies down- that state of my conscience does not justify me before God.

1 John 3:21
[i]Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God.[/i]

Every time I come before God it is the same way- by the blood of Christ. At no time will I ever be able to stand before God in this life and declare "I am ready to stand in my own goodness". At no time will I declare to God, "no need for the covering this time." If any man comes- he comes by the blood of Christ. That is all we are saying. My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness. In myself I stand before God in filthy rags - compared to God's righteousness. I doubt there is a soul on earth that would venture into God's presence apart from the blood of sprinkling.

What of, "Be ye holy, for I am holy."
And "Be ye perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Are we to be sons of God, yet less in stature than the angels? Are we never to attain above Adam and Eve, as immature, undeveloped, unwise, and lacking in holiness as they were? (For how can something be born holy? Holiness is wrought by moral choices.)

If my heart condemn me not- God is greater than my heart and knows all things. God is standing ready to judge the very thoughts and intents of our hearts. Things that are so deep and mysterious that it will take Him to sort them out.

20 says if your heart condmens you, fear, for God is greater than your heart.
21 says if you heart does not condemn you, fear not, for you do what is right and are pleasing to God (22).

...

Whew, I think this is my longest post yet. And I didn't even finish replying to one post!

lol, I'll be back later :-P

Good talking with you guys (and gals!),
The Lord be with you,
Nile

If you love God in all things you will do no wrong.

Sadly brother, to my dispair I haven't found this to be true. At one time I may have intended to do no wrong but soon discovered I was still doing harm to others. I was shocked to find out that my conscience was clean only so long as my arbitrary vantage point allowed it. All that is required for this illusion to end is for someone elses arbitrary viewpoint to see a side of you that you were oblivious to.

For example

I think many things are not sin which others do (although I also think many things are sin which others don't!)

So even though I practice a conscience as clear and as tender as I know how, I believe I am not fit to judge myself accurately.

This realization, that even a clear conscience can be subjective and therefore false, would be crushing to the sincere moral person unless there was objective refuge in Christ. I agree with you that we are responsible for the light we are shown. Yet what do we do if that light is more then we can look at? How many lumens can we stand?

Blessings,

MC

The reason is because we are not forgiven until we confess and repent, and you cannot confess and repent of sin you haven't yet committed.

If this is true in the strictest sense, then a person who does not confess their last sin is lost. I do not say that as a copout or excuse to sin. I say that because it is the finality of Oberlin theology.

What of Adam and Eve before the fall?
[u]What of the angels?[/u]
They stood/stand in the presense of God apart from the blood of Jesus. How? Because they are pure and clean. We can be pure and clean when we are washed by the blood of Jesus.

You probably would know that Wesley would reject the notion that a man could attain to a perfection such as this.

Holiness is wrought by moral choice

I have to contend with this statement. Man cannot be holy apart from the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Holiness is not compliance to a moral code- it is the bearing of the fruit of the Spirit in ones life. There is no such thing as "the fruit of the law" or "the fruit of a moral code". Rules cannot take a person where I am talking about.

I’m not good at talking theology, so I merely share experience – maybe it’s just an attempt to align it with the theological discussion going on here. As Nile said: it’s all about the rubber hitting the road – and yes, yes, it comes down hard! There seems to be a bottom that is so hard that no theological system can touch. For example:

Yesterday I was ministering in churches, and while carrying up the Bible and my sermon I became acutely aware of the treasures assigned to me – souls and God’s Word. What a dreadful responsibility! I felt horribly incapable of giving these precious souls what they really needed. I knew that I was unable to love these people as God requires. I am just too numb. And – I mean it’s real, not just a self-perception. It’s far more serious than a few flubbed sentences and natural limitations (the things that used to bend me out of shape). I was close to tears and wondering how I ever got myself in that place. Thankfully God got me through, with the help of some quick thoughts about David Brainerd, whose diary I had recently read. I felt that if he could find hope and even joy in God’s grace even in his failures, surely I could too - even though I am no where near his spirituality.

Honestly, I have just too many short comings that I cannot overcome, even with my hardest efforts. It’s frustrating. There is no way that I can love people like I should, and to make matters even worse, if I try hard, that’s exactly what it looks like to them: fake. It’s also exhausting.

I heartily agree with Finney – that we need to move from our passivity. We can’t just sit back in our arm chairs and complain about the church when we are not obeying him ourselves and letting him use us. But on the other hand, it seems that when we open ourselves up to him, we encounter the reality of our sins and inadequacies.

I was encouraged by a word from a burdened believer in the second church: Never had he heard such a message in the church (liberalism, traditionalism, etc have been the staple diet.) Praise God, he finds a nitch for his children, in spite of themselves.

Grace, grace, marvelous grace,
Grace that is greater than all my sin!!!!

Diane

Philologos wrote

Belief arises from revelation but for Finney in his lectures conviction will not arise from divine revelation but from the power of reason. We should bear this in mind as we move on to consider his views on the Atonement

Finney didnt based his theology on reason but on the revelation he received from the bible truths.After he was converted he found the strict calvinistic system of his pastor contraditory with his reason that's true but the bible was his textbook from where he founded his theology.

Every theological system has its own flaws. Luther was used by God to rediscover the doctrine of justification by faith, so was Calvin on the sovereighnity of God and Wesley on sanctification.They all overemphasised those particular doctrines in their zeal to spread the truth of God.Finney believe it or not was one of those spiritual giants who expounded better then anyone else the theology of revival.

That's not fair if we call him a 'naturalist' or 'moralist'or worse an unorthodox. The mark of God's hand and blessing was evident in his ministry.It's unbeilievable how we reduce his faith to some kind of humanistic christian belief.I dont remember one instance from his biography where he ever expected to concicted sinner by the power of reason. He always expected God to convict his audience by the power of the Holy Spirit.He reasoned with sinners and tried to convince them to come to the Saviour.

A prophet must be judged by the fruits.Finney's personal life and character was an example of personal holiness and purity, his minitsry was mightily blessed by God, he was one of the great soulwinner of his time.His success was not a result of the man centered gosple or watered down gosple that manny preach today to fill their churches with half converted ppl.

There are physical laws that God created for the universe to fuction but it is He who keeps them working.In the same way there are spiritual laws in the kingdom of God to be obeyed by faith for the advancement of his kingdom and glory.

Atonement of jesus Christ is a fact that Finney believed and preached,when it comes to interpretation or its explanation diffrent men of God in the history of the church have held diffrent views.The moral coverment theology as a theory may have its origine with the 17th century dutch theologian ...(forgot his name) but i think it was Jonathan Edwards who inspired his 'theological followers' to expound on MGTH.

Great men of God have had diffrent views on atonement, this is historically true but this doesnt make them unorthodox or heretic.

God bless

The mark of God's hand and blessing was evident in his ministry

Hi elected,

With appreciation for your concerns, I don't think anyone here would call Finney a heretic, or would deny God's work in his ministry. In many cases there has been great effort to study his ministry and writing with respect. Within that context, there are some interesting and pressing issues that I consider worth talking about.

I realize there are those who would classify Finney as a heretic. I do not see him that way at all. I am really only a student here, and am not pouring contempt on him as much as I am asking how to make sense of him. I find many important ideas that I would like to make sense of beyond well-meaning sentiment.

I mentioned earlier being drawn to Finney. There is this example from the 1850 sermon ""Abiding in Christ and not sinning":

Do any say--How shall we get into Christ? How can we attain to this peculiar and soul-transforming union?

In the first place do not begin with assuming that the thing is exceedingly difficult. Do not impeach your loving Savior by supposing that He is so far off and so averse that you can have at least but a faint hope of ever finding him. No indeed; for lo, HE CALLETH THEE even now; arise and go to him. He seeks this very union.

Then the next and main thing is to cast out from your heart all other lovers--all rivals to your Lord. Let your heart go out to him alone. Let your will be lost in his will;--not lost in the sense of being annihilated, but in the better sense of being submitted--merged in his will. Let it be enough for you to know and follow his will.

Dismiss all selfish ideas and all selfish pursuits. Cease to form selfish schemes, or to scramble after selfish good. Be satisfied with Christ and his love; so shall he accept your heart's love and make you his own.

But in the same sermon he says Hence when we sin, we are no longer in Christ, but out of Christ...:-( Perhaps we simply don't have a common definition of 'sin'.

Like I said earlier I am not a Finney 'Protestor'... Having said that I would like to include some wonderful quotes from Finney that illustrates why he continues to draw, appeal, fascinate and yet, at times bewilder...

From "Jesus,, a Savior from Sinning"

How many times have I seen people in this state, pressed with trouble, till they actually give up all for lost, and then bethink themselves of one more last resort--just to leave themselves simply in the hands of Jesus: then salvation comes! They return to the first simple thing of the gospel--let go of self-dependency and cast themselves on Christ--or rather--drop in the sinkings of their self-despair--drop into Christ alone and there find help! Then they see the pole star of hope, peering through the darkness of their despair!

Amen.

"The Wonderful Love of God."

But let me say once more: the fact is, sinners mistake the nature of God's love... They always suppose that they must do something to deserve his love; you ask them to come to Christ, and they say, I must do more; I must become better; I must pray, I must do this thing or the other thing, to deserve his love. They have, you observe, the idea of complacent love, they must deserve it before they have it--they want to feel that they deserve it. The sinner never will believe that God loves him as a sinner. But let me tell you sinner that this is all wrong; you can never deserve God's love in the sense in which you hope to possess it--and if you seek to deserve it thus you will never be saved. But remember it was as a sinner that Christ died for you! It was as a rebel that God gave his Son to die for you! Just as you are in your sins God loves you, and for you just in that state he gave his Son to die for you. This is what you must believe. You will find it difficult to believe, but it is absolutely necessary that you should do so. Let me beseech you to let the idea take full possession of your minds, and say to yourself, what need then to seek to render myself deserving if God loves me now just as I am? It was as I am that Christ died for me; it was as a sinner that God loved me, and loves me still; as a sinner then I will go to Jesus, as I am, as an humble penitent, seeking, but not deserving sinner. Will you come? Will you come now? Will you believe now? or make God a liar?

Though I have persistent questions and concerns, I thank God for Charles Finney. My questions and even critiques are not the same as supposing that I am even worthy to tie his shoelaces. They are only questions from my heart and not issues I would raise to belittle his character or demean his ministry.

Blessings brethren

MC

True biblical faith, however, does not fear reason, for God is a reasonable God, and true reason is derived from His Divine Intelligence.

Certainly Ron is not implying that men are not ro reason; especially knowing how pedantic the man is. His appeal is for God's revelation of the redemption of man. What has God revealed? I mean, taken in it's totality from Genesis to Revelation there is a carefully revealed plan of redemption.

The danger we risk is placing the scriptures into a construct from which error can be polemically fortified to 'prove' certain philosophical points as 'true' and in the process [i]miss[/i] the TRUTH. An idea or concept is not true simply because you can defend the points to your own satisfaction in debate. If we are all interested in knowing the truth, no matter what that truth may be, we have to be willing to consider the possibility that we may be wrong in some area. My position in conversation is exactly that.

Perhaps we did not start far enough back when we started this thread? I wish to ask a few questions that may help show what I am getting at:

1) What happened when Adam sinned and his eyes were opened? Why did he and his wife need to be 'covered'? Why did God make coats of skins to do the job?

2) When Adam tried to cover himself and his wife he used fig leaves. What was he trying to cover up?

I have a theory I want to subject to destructive testing. ;-)

In Genesis 3:21 we find God having made garments of skins for Adam and Eve. They had made coats of fig leaves and hid from God because they were naked. It seems to me that they had walked before God naked and unashamed until the point that Sin entered and they fell short of the glory of God. Their conscience did not trouble them before. Why? Were they clothed in the radiance of God's glory? Was this merely a matter of conscience? God created man and declared him to be very good. He did not create man in a way that was sinful. In other words, it don't seem to square that Adam and Eve were sinful before and that eating the tree just opened their eyes to the fact. In my mind, the skins replaced something we once had.

I have long wondered if what had actually happened is that God's glory lifted off of their bodies exposing them (i.e. Ichabod "the glory has departed"). Moses face did shine when he was in the presence of God. I see no cause to think that Adam and Eve had not shone also as the Sun shining in it's strength; that is, until sin entered. They literally walked daily in what Moses' temporarily experienced on the Mount.

A strange phenomena no doubt; but dare I say that we wear clothing today because we do not walk with God as did Adam in the cool of the day? We may well have the Holy Spirit, but that cannot be the fullness of what Adam knew. The proof that all is not complete is that we still wear clothes.

Adam and Eve knew a closeness to God that had an immediate effect on their radiance; evidence that they had been in the presence of God. It would seem to me that so long as this radiance (glory) remained, they were clothed and unashamed. When it departed, they saw it was gone and they hid themselves from God. They fell short of the glory of God.

I found this commentary from Adam Clarke on Gen. 3:15:

[i]It is very likely that the skins out of which their clothing was made were taken off animals whose blood had been poured out as a sin-offering to God; for as we find Cain and Abel offering sacrifices to God, we may fairly presume that God had given them instructions on this head; nor is it likely that the notion of a sacrifice could have ever occurred to the mind of man without an express revelation from God.[/i]

Is not Genesis 3:15 the first place we find the revelation of atonement? If the glory departed and man stands naked before God- the nakedness being the outward evidence of their having sinned- it only makes sense to me that man would need to be 'covered'. In the presence of God man could wear clothing so as not to be reminded of the shame of God having departed. The wilderness Tabernacle was made of several types of animal skins. But there was another 'covering' that we must not overlook:

Then the glory of the LORD went up from the cherub, and stood over the threshold of the house; and the house was filled with the cloud, [u]and the court was full of the brightness of the LORD's glory.[/u] (Ezekiel 10:4)

Until God's glory came upon the Tabernacle it was clothed in the common coverings of animal skins. God was not there.

Millions of animals died in the Old Testament to 'cover' as it were the sins of the people. But none of those offerings could take away sins. And more than that, the shedding of the blood of those animals could offer us nothing more than their 'skin' as a covering for our nakedness. But Christ is the brightness of God's glory and He having suffered and died for us as an offering has left unto us His 'glory'; the evidence of His innocence. We having been found in Him are clothed with the glory that Adam lost. Any other 'covering' than this constitutes fig leaves. And it is not until God really draws near that we realize what we are clothed upon with. We can strut around in our fig leaves whilst He is afar off; but what about that great and terrible day of the Lord?

When I rise to worlds unknown and behold Thee on thy throne? What then?

Brother Robert wrote:

A strange phenomena no doubt; but dare I say that we wear clothing today because we do not walk with God as did Adam in the cool of the day? We may well have the Holy Spirit, but that cannot be the fullness of what Adam knew. The proof that all is not complete is that we still wear clothes.

This reminded me of this prayer...

Psa. 119:1 \tBlessed are the undefiled in the way,
\tWho walk in the law of the LORD!
2 \tBlessed are those who keep His testimonies,
\tWho seek Him with the whole heart!
3 \tThey also do no iniquity;
\tThey walk in His ways.
4 \tYou have commanded us
\tTo keep Your precepts diligently.
5 \tOh, that my ways were directed
\tTo keep Your statutes!
6 \tThen I would not be ashamed,
\tWhen I look into all Your commandments.

To know one may walk in His ways and know one's sins are forgiven is blessedness. And by knowing this, the prayer is that He further direct my steps so that I would not be ashamed when I go foward into all His commandments...

Thankyou for sharing this contemplation...

God Bless
Jeff

Another Scripture comes to mind...

2Cor. 5:4 For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life.

Mortality swallowed up by life...

In Christ
Jeff

In my mind, the skins replaced something we once had.

I have long wondered if what had actually happened is that God's glory lifted off of their bodies exposing them

Interesting thoughts, Robert. I have never thought about it that way. I assumed that their naked bodies did not need anything to shield them from God because they were without sin – pure, safe… (That could not have been said of Israel or anyone) But still, the couple would have been one with God in his glory.

I perceive that the coverings were necessary because God cannot look upon sin without judging it. Adam and Eve instinctively knew that their sin had put them at risk. (like a child who does wrong and distances himself from his parent.) Guilt separates us from the very one who loves us most: God.

God (HIMSELF) put better coverings on the pair because figleaves crumble. They are just as useless as any of our self-made cover-ups: blame, self-effort etc.

When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord. Luke 5:8 Why did Peter respond this way? Was it not because the miracles of the fish caused him to see Christ as holy – and THAT made him aware of his sinfulness. Essentially he was saying, “Go away, Jesus, I can’t stand looking at myself.” Like Isaiah’s reaction to the holy presence: “Woe to me.. I am ruined…” In Isaiah’s case a live coal from the altar symbolized atonement: … Your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.” Is. 6:5,6

I see a lesson in this: It is God’s glory, not our rantings about the evils and sins in this world that induce guilt leading to salvation. It’s not about what I DID wrong, but the fact that I am hopelessly flawed and unholy apart from God’s glory cover.

Salvation is how God covers our shame and disgrace with his glory.

I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring ...
take away the disgrace...
and crown [you] with GLORY and honor.
Is. 44:3, Ps. 119:39, Ps. 6:52

How do sinners see God’s glory – and THUS their sinfulness?

Is that not how God used Finney in the revivals? God shone his glory through this humble servant?

And then LATER (am I correct?)Finney tried to preserve the glory in "tents" via his theological system. (I'm illuding to the disciples' response to the transfiguration)

Diane

I dont remember one instance from his biography where he ever expected to concicted sinner by the power of reason.

Great men of God have had diffrent views on atonement

God actually encourages reasoning
not to remove their minds!

I appreciate this balance brought before the forum here. We can’t generalize based on some aspects while ignoring the parts that may reveal otherwise. (I guess that works both ways)

Actually, I’m surprised you folk didn’t take your point a step further: Divine revelation is not the fool-proof method either! Didn’t the Mormons arise from “divine” revelation?

I understand that this thread was launched to scrutinize one aspect of Finney’s theology: moral government (which I am foggy about) in light of scripture – using some good-old hermeneutical skills - and not to put the entire person and his ministry on trial – nor discount what GOD did through the man (and still is).

Just a side note: Why is it so natural for humans to digress into “let’s have a vote” about the person? Surely that only happens in political and church elections. And only in a war is one required to take sides. I’m thankful that there are no fences here and we can freely weave in and out of each other’s perceptions and experiences - and thus get at our own potential blindspots.

Diane

It is God’s glory, not our rantings about the evils and sins in this world that induce guilt leading to salvation.

Certainly. This is why preaching mere law alone in repentance messages will never do. The people have to see (as it were) the glory of God and be made aware of their estate by revelation. I could prove a person a sinner by the simplest of math- but they have to have a revelation of the fact where they actually 'see' it. One could strip a away a person's fig leaves to point out their need for a covering; but when God comes near a sort of self-conscious awareness of our need arises.

I understand that this thread was launched to scrutinize one aspect of Finney’s theology: moral government (which I am foggy about) in light of scripture – using some good-old hermeneutical skills - and not to put the entire person and his ministry on trial – nor discount what GOD did through the man (and still is).

Yes. The concern strikes at the very core of what we believe. Either Jesus died for [i]my[/i] sins or He did not. Either [i]my[/i] sins sent Christ to the cross or they did not. Either Christ paid my sin debt or He did not. Either Christ is my 'covering' or He is not. Either the blood of Christ is the basis on which I am accepted with God or not. As God has said- when I see the blood, I will pass over you.

If Adam Clarke is correct then we start to see why God rejected Cain's offering. He did not offer it in faith- that is, according to the revelation of God. He tried to offer a different offering. This is the root of all sin. Will we do what we know God has revealed or will we rebel against it? Will we come to God- God's way or our way? He has revealed what He requires.

The concern strikes at the very core of what we believe. Either Jesus died for my sins or He did not. Either my sins sent Christ to the cross or they did not. Either Christ paid my sin debt or He did not. Either Christ is my 'covering' or He is not. Either the blood of Christ is the basis on which I am accepted with God or not.

Amen. With regards to this aspect of his theology, Finney seems outside of usual calvinist/arminian differences.

MC

Either my sins sent Christ to the cross or they did not. Either Christ paid my sin debt or He did not. Either Christ is my 'covering' or He is not

“He paid a debt he did not owe,
I owed a debt I could not pay
I needed someone to wash my sins a-way.
And now I sing a brand new song, .

The only problem, is .... something significant seems missing: the evidence of a life set free from the bondages of sin, law, and guilt. The saints are still making fig leaves.

If Christ provided a buffer between the sinner and God, then how does that actually change the sinner, besides changing his status with God? How does the debt payment work in real life?

We teach sinners that if they surrender to Christ, their sins will be gone, wipped out. However, unless they go into gross denial, they still exibit sin, and everybody but them and their blind religous peers know it. Isn't it arrogant to say that if we are 'saved' our sin is "covered", while the sinner across the street does the same thing and is condemned because he doesn't have coverage.

EDIT Please bear with me. I wish to seriously examine this because of my practical concerns. Guilt is still an imporant commodity in our lives. When our theology tells us one thing and our consciences tell us another, we get messed up.

What is the "covering" - according to the New Covenant agreement?

(I think we’re coming back to some earlier discussion – and to be honest, I have no idea how this fits into Finney’s moral gov’t theory – but hope to get there……….. eventually…. )

Diane

How does the debt payment work in real life?

This is a good question. I believe we have to start at Romans 1 and work our way through it. The book of Genesis tells us how everything began. The book of Revelation tells us how things are going to end. The book of Romans tells us how to be right with God.

Romans begins by destroying man's excuses (Romans 1-3). It moves on to Abraham and the doctrine of justification by faith (Romans 4-5). Notice the sequence. God did not start with sanctification (Romans 6-9), but started with man's guilt and moved on to justification by faith (1-5). If a person does not fully appreciate what God is revealing in Romans 1-5 they will end up with salvation by sanctification. If a person does not appreciate Romans 6-9, but fully affirm Romans 1-5 then they will say, "Let us sin that grace may abound." But it is a package deal. It all has to be received together as a single truth. We may break it downs into steps for the sake of discussion, but [i]all[/i] the components have to be present for the whole to function.

Some focus on the sanctification parts of Romans at the expense of the justification passages. Others focus on justification and leave out Romans 6-9. We need to take it all as a single unit.

My lifelong problem has been that I knew I was not perfect, but I realized that God had made a righteous walk with God in which we walk before God with a pure conscience and a clean heart- possible. It should be the normal Christian life. However, my problem was, when I would stumble and sin- I was trying to work that perfection belief within an Oberlin theology framework. In short, I saw the writing on the wall- unless I am walking in complete perfection- I am going to Hell.

Now, I knew this was not right. I knew that noone on earth is perfect. Theoretically I knew it was possible and at times walking in it for long periods perhaps. But I could not stake my trust in that. I had to re-read Romans until I believed what God said about justification. Once I fully appreciated that- I could press towards perfection without the constant fear of damnation (if that makes sense). The problem was NOT with God's revelation- it was with my [i]appreciation[/i]. I could appreciate the scriptures that were real strict- but not the ones that indicated that our standing with God is via justification through faith in Christ.

This is why I locked horns with certain men on these forums in the early days. they believed in perfection- but when I heard that I heard it from a Finney point of view. I knew I would not be saved if I had to be perfect. So I took the opposing view and confronted perfection. what I needed to do- was appreciate justification. And that I am trying more each day to do.

BTW? Where is Ron? :-o

Compton:

This realization, that even a clear conscience can be subjective and therefore false, would be crushing to the sincere moral person unless there was objective refuge in Christ.

But in the same sermon he says Hence when we sin, we are no longer in Christ, but out of Christ... Perhaps we simply don't have a common definition of 'sin'.

Diane:

Honestly, I have just too many short comings that I cannot overcome, even with my hardest efforts. It’s frustrating. There is no way that I can love people like I should, and to make matters even worse, if I try hard, that’s exactly what it looks like to them: fake. It’s also exhausting.

But on the other hand, it seems that when we open ourselves up to him, we encounter the reality of our sins and inadequacies.

This is probably the greatest heresy in the world today.

Isn't it arrogant to say that if we are 'saved' our sin is "covered", while the sinner across the street does the same thing and is condemned because he doesn't have coverage.

Robert:

If this is true in the strictest sense, then a person who does not confess their last sin is lost. I do not say that as a copout or excuse to sin. I say that because it is the finality of Oberlin theology.

1) What happened when Adam sinned and his eyes were opened? Why did he and his wife need to be 'covered'? Why did God make coats of skins to do the job?

2) When Adam tried to cover himself and his wife he used fig leaves. What was he trying to cover up?

Adam and Eve needed to be covered because of their nakedness, which was the result of their sin. Now it seems to me that this was because their bodies had been corrupted by sin. So God giving them clothes was not really replacing what had been lost - to do that would require them to have new bodies. Indeed, replacing what was lost would mean they wouldn't be ashamed of their nakedness. Instead, it was a stop-gap measure until the resurrection of the dead, when what had been lost really will be restored (for some), and the "covering" no longer needed, for it's purpose will have passed. Just some ideas.

Along the same vein, Christ makes intercession for our sin. If we stop sinning, does He still need to make intercession? I wouldn't think so. It seems silly to think that Christ will be interceeding for us once we get to heaven.
Christ is the mediator between God and men. If their is no strife, is their need of a mediator?

I guess what I'm getting at is the idea that Jesus restores/will restore us to what we were before the fall. Has sin forever corrupted mankind, so that even in heaven we need forgiveness and "covering"? Does Christ "cleanse" or "hide" our unrighteousness?

Either Jesus died for my sins or He did not.

Either my sins sent Christ to the cross or they did not.

Either Christ paid my sin debt or He did not.

Either Christ is my 'covering' or He is not.

Either the blood of Christ is the basis on which I am accepted with God or not.

So Christ is the basis (the reason) of your acceptance before God, as are you.

Otherwise everyone would be accepted before God.

Will we do what we know God has revealed or will we rebel against it? Will we come to God- God's way or our way? He has revealed what He requires.

God does NOT require faith that He will save you [b][i]even if you don't obey!!![/b][/i]

This is greatest deception in the world today.

In short, I saw the writing on the wall- unless I am walking in complete perfection- I am going to Hell.

I knew that noone on earth is perfect.

Look at the flood: Of all the earth, how many were righteous? ONE FAMILY!!! I'm sure the preachers of the day said, "No one is perfect! No one lives righteously! So don't worry 'bout it. Serve God the best you can (which is really not your best - no one does their best!) and He will forgive you."

...

When I get some more time, I'd like to look at some specific scripture passages.

Blessings,
Nile

Good evening brother,

The conscience is an objective ruler; if you live by it you do no wrong.

I'm not sure I understand correctly what you mean here, Nile. You've already stated that you and another Christian see different things as sin. How can your conscience and the other fellow's conscience both be objective rulers?

Are you saying we recieve no imputed righteousness from Christ, and all the Lord requires for salvation is that we live with a clean conscience? Understanding this point would clear many things up for me in our conversations.

This is a fairly routine conversation I suppose, and so am not wanting to drag it out here.

Suffice it to say I agree that willful persistent sin is evidence of not being born again. I might even say that practicing a clear conscience is synomous with a true confession of faith. Yet, repentent Christians who are maturing may suddenly realize something that was permissable for them yesterday is no longer permissable today. Their conscience and character are being conformed daily to the likeness of Christ. That they are discovering daily what it is to be more like Christ today then they were yesterday, is grounds for me not trusting the safegaurd of the conscience for salvation. (I am trying consciously to avoid entangling a progressive notion of sanctification here...)

Again this is not at all saying that the Christian can be indifferent to sin. In fact, the Christian is dire and heartbroken over the realization of it. As you have said, not all have the same convictions, but all must have the same realization of their need for Christ.

Having said that, I would not want to dissuade you one ounce of confidence you have in Christ for sustaining you. This is not at all my point here. I am not being cynical towards childlike faith, but only trying to reconcile the varying standards I see in the lives of even mature believers with the unvarying standard of Christ.

If someone could convince me through scripture that God does not hold us to the perfect standard of his son for salvation, then I could be convinced that the best intentions of our consciences are good enough. Indeed, in Christ we may have unsullied consciences...there is no need for sanctioned guilt. Even so, will there be no futher enlightenment of righteousness after (upon) death?

Blessings brother,

MC

Are you proposing than one can be saved without repenting and confessing of ALL their sin?

I am proposing what Paul proposed in Romans 1-5.

What a marvelous thing; a doctrine that demands the strictest brand of holiness one can conceive- save a full-on monastic life and yet to fall short of even one jot or tittle will leave the soul ultimately lost. If that is the Good News (Gospel), what's the bad news?

The sin of the world sent Him to the cross. Your sin is part of that.Your sins sent Him to cross as much as it is possible to conceive, considering that He died 2000 years ago and you sinned within the past 100 years. You didn't even exist 2000 years ago, much less have any sin.

Nor that he may many times offer himself, even as the chief priest doth enter into the holy places every year with blood of others;since it had behoved him many times to suffer from the foundation of the world, [u]but now once, at the full end of the ages,[/u] for putting away of sin through his sacrifice, he hath been manifested;

The blood of Christ was offered once at the end of the ages. This sacrifice was sufficient for all peoples in all times to the end of the ages who are heirs to the righteousness of God that is by faith.

No, He did not pay your sin debt. No one can pay that but you.

If this is true then I am doomed. I can never pay the debt. The debt can only be paid by the Father and the offering is his Son. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission. My blood is worthless to take away sins. The multiplied millions of gallons of shed blood of bulls and of goats could not take away sins. But the blood, that speaketh better things than that of Abel was shed for me and it cries for mercy on my behalf.

This is where the confusion comes.
Christ is the grounds of you being accepted with God.
Your repentance and faith are the conditions.

So Christ is the basis (the reason) of your acceptance before God, as are you.

Otherwise everyone would be accepted before God.

No one contends that God does not require repentance and faith. But keep in mind you have already added to this equation absolute perfect obedience as an added condition. So it is not Christ as the basis and repentance and faith as the condition; it is sinless perfection as the condition. That being, because you have defined 'repentance' as extending to all sins and forsaking of them to be the proof of that repentance. To simplify the math: perfection = salvation. Imperfection = damnation.

God require obedience and faith (faith that He will save you if you obey on the grounds of Christ's blood).

This kind of salvation is no better than the Old Testament. Those people all their lifetime were subject unto bondage because they feared death (Hebrews 2:15).

God does NOT require faith that He will save you even if you don't obey!!!

This is greatest deception in the world today.

I don't believe that obedience and Lordship are optional. In fact, the doctrine of which you speak I lived most of my life to one degree or another. I lived hair-trigger damnation for probably 30+ years. But then I started to take Romans 3-5 seriously and walked out from under that bondage.

If by complete perfection you mean loving God and loving others with all your being - then you are totally right!!!

By complete perfection I mean Oberlin sinless perfection. I mean Finney's version that damns my soul over a cup of coffee or reading a novel.

If by perfect you mean morally perfect, you are quite mistaken! There surely are saints of God who love Him day in and day out.
Just because you don't know any doesn't mean they don't exist.

I don't know anyone that has reached the level of self-sacrifice that Finney preached. I have heard of certain people like this; but from what the old timers tell me they all backslid but a few because they could not live the standard they tried to preach. It worked real good when they were on fire for God and they were on the Mountain Top- but when they walked the valley they found they could not keep their own standards.

Look at the flood: Of all the earth, how many were righteous? ONE FAMILY!!! I'm sure the preachers of the day said, "No one is perfect! No one lives righteously! So don't worry 'bout it. Serve God the best you can (which is really not your best - no one does their best!) and He will forgive you."

We are required to walk in the Spirit and if we do we are not under the law. Walking in the Spirit is not a list of endless laws that try to emulate a Spirit filled life.

Curious RobertW….. your many hours of reading Finney (audio) which I found here on SI do you present any of this information in that format or is this new revelation for you.

I ask because it seems you have very recently been a proponet of at least much of the Finney gospel?

Comptons: This is not at all my point here. I am not being cynical towards childlike faith, but only trying to reconcile the varying standards I see in the lives of even mature believers with the unvarying standard of Christ.

If you read long enough the works of Finney and those that are like minded, you will find that they actually 'add to' through a series of applied Christian principals a whole extra commentary of laws. Almost like the Talmud is to the 613 laws. There is a host of things that are so far out- I have no idea how they even arrive at the conclusions. Where do you read in scripture that if a person does not give every extra dime they have to the work of the ministry then they do not love their neighbor as themselves? But they can arrive at this conclusion- not by revelation, but by deduction.

This places the stewardship of our possessions in such an exalted state that to spend any money on pleasures (sweet meats, entertainment, etc.) is a transgression against our neighbor. I believe in giving. I believe in outrageous giving. But who gave these men the authority to declare that a Christian cannot spend a dime on something that is not a necessity and that all excess must be given to the poor or missions? And then suggest the person has no religion of they spend money on tea or coffee or tobacco?

I'll keep reading- but I'm just not finding it.

Curious RobertW….. your many hours of reading Finney (audio) which I found here on SI do you present any of this information in that format or is this new revelation for you.

I'm not sure I understand the question. I believe Finney was a great revivalist. I study and read his works and am rereading his memiors even now. He has a great deal of good things to say. I have some favorites. His lectures on Revival I think are very good. They are not a complete view of things- but they are very useful.

But, we are discussing his views on atonement and his attitude towards imputed righteousness. It is quite a challenge to me because I try prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. Not everyone is so discriminating of his material and suffer all of it or most all of it. This is not the first discussion of this kind over the years that I have been involved in with Finney; but I think it must be one of the most cordial. ;-)

thank you, and I will continue to read these older discussions as I find them. and btw... very good.

But, we are discussing his views on atonement and his attitude towards imputed righteousness.

I fear that we can’t move too far on these topics if we don't grasp the deeper implication of sin.

Here’s what I mean; Joe may list yesterday’s sins like this: I blew up at Mr. T, I purchased a suit I did not need, I said I was fine to Mrs. S when I wasn’t (lying), I clipped short Aunt J’s phone call because I was afraid I was going to be late for church, and so forth. These are all superficial acts that Joe is conscious of (though he may not have noticed just how rude he was to Aunt J who is annoying and unsaved anyway).

However, Joe fails to recognize (confess) his real sin – the reason he keeps on committing these superficial sins: his desire to be accepted by significant people in his life. And so everyday he commits several sins that spring from his unconfessed idol: man.

Do you see how a shallow view of sin actually imprisons people with besetting sins? It doesn’t set anyone free, but just keeps them spinning in this hopeless circle of shallow “confession” and shallow “repentance”. And no amount of “imputation” frees one from that.

The Old Covenant was a list of manageable and conscious do’s and don’ts. It did not include laws of the heart, like doubt, fear, buried resentment, wrong desire, etc, althougth the laws certainly addressed the symptoms of these deeper sins. Jesus fine-tuned God’s requirements: anger=murder, lust=adultery, etc. He raised the bar to an unmanageable standard (for all except those who practise denial).

If you applied the “list of sins to confess” method on Jesus’ standards, you’d find yourself eventually colouring the entire page black (unless you practise denial). And THAT was Jesus’ point, was it not? He wanted us to see that we cannot manage our sin problem. Jesus didn’t set out to enslave us in an even more tortuous pattern of shallow confession and repentance – which is really extremely self-absorbing – a sin in itself that reflects the sin of unbelief: inability to trust in Christ’s Life and his power.

I am suggesting that as long as we view sin through an Old Covenant mindset we will be spinning in our wheels, and we’ll miss the entire purpose of Christ’s death and resurrection.

I’ll explain more later……..
Diane

“The cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.” 1 Cor. 1:18

Why is it foolish to the lost? (which would include all who are relying on works and the law for their salvation.)

Those who are perishing rely on law and a justice system of some kind to restrain their impulses. Justice makes perfect sense to the lost. Just watch the news and see how eagerly victims of crime desire justice on criminals. The desire is not a better life for the criminal but a just punishment that matches his crime - like the Old Covenant eye for an eye.

The idea of Christ’s death being the “eye for an eye” fits Old Covenant symbolism. But even the OC implies more than that: ”And the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Is. 53:6 According to my Bible footnotes this verse points back to the ritual of the priest laying his hands on the scapegoat and symbolically putting Israel’s sins on it. The scapegoat role was to take AWAY the sins (symbolically), not merely to be the “eye for an eye”.

You may know by now that I am examining this idea of Christ paying the debt charges (God’s wrath has to be satisfied). I fear it is observed at the expense of a far greater purpose for the cross: taking AWAY our sins. Really, it is not God’s view towards us that needs to change, but WE need the changing. We need the cleansing/rescuing/redeeming. In fact, we need something new, because the old is not even redeemable. Can any amount of ‘debt payment” absolve something that requires death?

What did the NT writers rejoice over? Was it over paid sin debts? …. inexpressible and glorious joy …” 1 Pet. 18

In my observations I hear a lot of Christians affirming relief over their paid “visa bill”. But why does this so often overshadow God’s mercy and forgiveness? It’s as if they haven’t experienced the later! Hey, you don’t talk about what is outside of your experience.
A thought: Is divine forgiveness required when there is no debt? (Remember, it’s been paid) Could this help explain why there is a chronic difficulty in forgiving others? ( just wondering out loud).

”He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.” I Pet. 2:24
Here we see the outcome of Christ bearing our sins: death to sins (not merely debt payment) If I link this verse with Romans, I see that this is not about a list of superficial sins – measurable things one does, but of an entire nature that was in enmity with God. Cleansing is not the same as changing legal status. Cleansing refers to something about us that changes. I think it is the Canadian Revival Fellowship that coined it as: The Exchanged Life.

Speaking about the foolishness of the cross, do you know what I think is the most foolish story in the entire Bible? It is the story or Hosea and the way he rescues his wife, Gomer.
It breaks all God’s rules, and all his justice, even the one on divorce!
And, there is no mention of just penalty for her debt. However, notice that Hosea bought her for 15 shekels. Who received the payment?

Now, doesn’t that express the “foolishness of God” 1 Cor. 18:25
And isn’t that also the message of the cross: “foolishness to those who are perishing.”

Diane

I am suggesting that as long as we view sin through an Old Covenant mindset we will be spinning in our wheels, and we’ll miss the entire purpose of Christ’s death and resurrection.

The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of Sin and death. The reason why this treadmill exists or 'wheel spinning' as you phrased it is because there is not settled sense of assurance. An individual is left to be preoccupied with repentance. If they find a place of rest, just wait till Sunday rolls around and another sermon will have been devised to expose another area of shortcomings that keep this process never ending.

In an environment such as this a person quickly realizes that they are not perfect- not even remotely close. But here is the challenge; unless the person is loving God with ALL their heart, soul, mind and strength and their neighbor as themselves then they are sinning and one unrepented sin will lead the soul to hell (in Oberlin theology). Now, add to that a definition of repentance the requires that the sin be utterly forsaken or it is not true repentance. That meaning, if I treat my neighbor in a way I would not want to be treated and I do this over and over again- I have not repented. In this type of theology passing by a stranded motorist without stopping every single time would be a sin each time you didn't stop to help.

My conscience at one time in my life pressed me down so hard that it pressed the joy of the Lord right out of my life. When that happened I was faced with a problem- no joy = no fruit of the Spirit. By way of analogy, it is as if I had tightened the bolts down too tight until they failed in both tension and shear. This is why you have torque requirements, for example, for tightening down engine bolts. I once had the wrong torque specs for tightening down connecting rod bolts on an old small block chevy 327 engine. I had the misguided notion that tighter is better. I did not realize I was stretching the metal- weakening it. I realized this when I snapped the stud off and the nut was still in the socket.

In like manor, God has a torque spec for our conscience. I we take it upon ourselves to tighten that thing down as tight as it can go- we run the risk of destroying ourselves.

God has a torque spec for our conscience.

God has a torque spec for our conscience.

How would you explain that?

I'm thinking here of liberty of conscience and God's ability to dictate to us areas of our lives that need redress. The 'torque wrench' has to remain in God's hands. If I take it upon myself to comb through my life in endless self-examination I will certainly despair of life. God puts HIS finger on things. People have a tendency to thing that asceticism is spirituality and it is not. It is a close counterfeit.

God knows just what to convict me of and deal with me about. He uses various means to do this. Revivalism Oberlin style seeks to stir up the fallow ground at nearly every opportunity. But a constant plowing of the field leaves no real harvest. If all a farmer did was plow all year and never left the ground alone to bear fruit- he would never have a crop. To everything there is a season and a time to every purpose under heaven.

And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; (John 16:8)

it is God's job to lead me into holiness. It is my job to respond rightly. The Pharisees had all sorts of rules that made them appear more spiritual than anyone else. But were they? A person can comply with a series of rules and resist the Holy Ghost. And resisting the Holy Ghost does not mean a person is rejecting the 'rules'. That is another major confusion in this theological framework. Folk get themselves and their own pet peeves confused with what GOD is saying to people.

God knows just what to convict me of and deal with me about. He uses various means to do this. Revivalism Oberlin style seeks to stir up the fallow ground at nearly every opportunity. But a constant plowing of the field leaves no real harvest.

Could we say that 'revival' is God's hand on the Church, while 'revivalism' is man putting his hand on the Church, in an attempt to induce, and even routinize the cherished and desired result of revival?

MC

it is God's job to lead me into holiness.

“It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God – and our righteousness, holiness, and redemption.” 1 Cor. 1: 30
How’s that for a new set of clothing!

Allow me to play God for a minute – well, a somewhat parallel role. I have 30+ kids I’m trying to make into blossoming musicians through private training, ie discipling. One thing for sure, I’ll never get them anywhere (but in tears) if I just tell them all the things they do wrong and get them to say they are sorry or try harder. In fact, none of them can do what’s right without a lot of discipling over years - using such means as repetition and imitation (my two favourite words) mixed with positive reinforcement.

I find that I have to teach them to value mistakes and failures. (If they are afraid of making mistakes they just sit on their hands.) Oh, I could get my students to the level of perfection: just keep them at the beginner stage forever – till they are so good, they don’t make any mistakes. But, no, that’s not my method. I prod them along through the quagmire of mistake-land, lathered with love. I even put them in front of audiences when they are not necessarily squeaky perfect. Then I might play a duet part and COVER up their weaknesses. They sound marvellous and their proud parents think their kids and good genetics made it happen. So what! They pay me for some more lessons.

I know that God’s Spirit prods us along in a similar fashion. He deserves the credit, of course, but we participate in the process. We can’t be afraid of the imperfect, or we will resist risks (where we learn to depend on him and not ourselves)

For me, the importance of recognizing each of my students as an individual and working with him or her accordantly cannot be underestimated. Age is not the sole criteria. I have to take them where they are, never mind the growth and development charts.

Sometimes I think that if I taught my students how to be musicians the way the church teaches people how to be Christ-followers (a generalization), I would produce no musicians. I just can’t make musicians without the sweaty process of one and one relationship and training, including dirt on my piano keys, and also snotty noses.

Thankfully God doesn’t mind snotty noses, and will be our faithful teacher and mentor when no one else has time for us or interest in our growth.

It is the precious gift of his Spirit.
Diane

One thing for sure, I’ll never get them anywhere (but in tears) if I just tell them all the things they do wrong and get them to say they are sorry or try harder.

You will notice in the Revelation that as our Lord addresses the churches He always starts things off affirming what they are doing [i]right[/i] (if they are doing anything at all right). I think we need to check our spirit as we minister and be sure we are hearing from God. We already have a pattern of how [i]He[/i] addresses His churches.

Could we say that 'revival' is God's hand on the Church, while 'revivalism' is man putting his hand on the Church, in an attempt to induce, and even routinize the cherished and desired result of revival?

This is a very good question. I have thought about it a lot over the years. Sadly, we have almost lost evangelists as they were once known in our circles. There used to be 'revival meetings' held at least yearly. No days there is a fear of evangelists coming in and roughing up the flock- so few are allowed in. I think the influence of certain TV motivational preachers have greatly effected this fact. Just being honest.

The opposite end of it is as you mention. I think that when God begins to deal with folk and the Holy Spirit moves certain individuals with an urgency to pray- God is doing the work. I have heard that Finney would often look for a place where the "Spirit of prayer" had fallen to go and minister there. I think that revivalism is a good means of getting folks out of their slumber so long as the Holy Spirit is in the work. I know that sounds conflicting- but what I mean is, revival preaching. Revival preaching- when God is stirring the people and prayer has started to go up for revival- is a phenomena I believe God is very much the author of.

I think that revivalism is a good means of getting folks out of their slumber so long as the Holy Spirit is in the work. I know that sounds conflicting- but what I mean is, revival preaching.

Thanks Robert. This doesn't sound conflicting.

MC

Compton:

I'm not sure I understand correctly what you mean here, Nile. You've already stated that you and another Christian see different things as sin. How can your conscience and the other fellow's conscience both be objective rulers?

What do you make of the Law of God being written in our minds and on our hearts?

Are you saying we recieve no imputed righteousness from Christ, and all the Lord requires for salvation is that we live with a clean conscience? Understanding this point would clear many things up for me in our conversations.

Diane:

The Old Covenant was a list of manageable and conscious do’s and don’ts. It did not include laws of the heart, like doubt, fear, buried resentment, wrong desire, etc, althougth the laws certainly addressed the symptoms of these deeper sins. Jesus fine-tuned God’s requirements: anger=murder, lust=adultery, etc. He raised the bar to an unmanageable standard (for all except those who practise denial).

Proverbs speaks of having righteous thoughts, and the prophets speak over and over about having the right motives and not simply going through the motions. "Rend your hearts and not your garments."
God certainly commands His people not to fear or have doubt. And what of the tenth commandment? "Do not covet."
That speaks wholly of the mind.

If you applied the “list of sins to confess” method on Jesus’ standards, you’d find yourself eventually colouring the entire page black (unless you practise denial). And THAT was Jesus’ point, was it not? He wanted us to see that we cannot manage our sin problem. Jesus didn’t set out to enslave us in an even more tortuous pattern of shallow confession and repentance – which is really extremely self-absorbing – a sin in itself that reflects the sin of unbelief: inability to trust in Christ’s Life and his power.

Sister, are there ANY sins which we can repent of???
If so, which sins can we NOT repent of?
Repent meaning to stop doing it.

A thought: Is divine forgiveness required when there is no debt? (Remember, it’s been paid) Could this help explain why there is a chronic difficulty in forgiving others?

”He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.” I Pet. 2:24
Here we see the outcome of Christ bearing our sins: death to sins (not merely debt payment) If I link this verse with Romans, I see that this is not about a list of superficial sins – measurable things one does, but of an entire nature that was in enmity with God. Cleansing is not the same as changing legal status. Cleansing refers to something about us that changes. I think it is the Canadian Revival Fellowship that coined it as: The Exchanged Life.

Robert:

What a marvelous thing; a doctrine that demands the strictest brand of holiness one can conceive- save a full-on monastic life and yet to fall short of even one jot or tittle will leave the soul ultimately lost. If that is the Good News (Gospel), what's the bad news?

1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Matthew 11:28-30
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

If this is true then I am doomed. I can never pay the debt. The debt can only be paid by the Father and the offering is his Son. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission.

No one contends that God does not require repentance and faith. But keep in mind you have already added to this equation absolute perfect obedience as an added condition. So it is not Christ as the basis and repentance and faith as the condition; it is sinless perfection as the condition. That being, because you have defined 'repentance' as extending to all sins and forsaking of them to be the proof of that repentance. To simplify the math: perfection = salvation. Imperfection = damnation.

This kind of salvation is no better than the Old Testament. Those people all their lifetime were subject unto bondage because they feared death (Hebrews 2:15).

By complete perfection I mean Oberlin sinless perfection. I mean Finney's version that damns my soul over a cup of coffee or reading a novel.

If, on the other hand, you drink coffee to the glory of God, and read novels out of pure love for God and others, then by all means, proceed, for Jesus would do no less. That is Oberlin theology my friend. :-)

I don't know anyone that has reached the level of self-sacrifice that Finney preached. I have heard of certain people like this; but from what the old timers tell me they all backslid but a few because they could not live the standard they tried to preach. It worked real good when they were on fire for God and they were on the Mountain Top- but when they walked the valley they found they could not keep their own standards.

[i]Look at the flood: Of all the earth, how many were righteous? ONE FAMILY!!! I'm sure the preachers of the day said, "No one is perfect! No one lives righteously! So don't worry 'bout it. Serve God the best you can (which is really not your best - no one does their best!) and He will forgive you."[/i]

We are required to walk in the Spirit and if we do we are not under the law. Walking in the Spirit is not a list of endless laws that try to emulate a Spirit filled life.

All the "lists" you speak of are applications of these two laws. All of the applications are subjective to the original law. Eating meat may be wrong for you, but ok for me.

But they can arrive at this conclusion- not by revelation, but by deduction.

This places the stewardship of our possessions in such an exalted state that to spend any money on pleasures (sweet meats, entertainment, etc.) is a transgression against our neighbor. I believe in giving. I believe in outrageous giving. But who gave these men the authority to declare that a Christian cannot spend a dime on something that is not a necessity and that all excess must be given to the poor or missions? And then suggest the person has no religion of they spend money on tea or coffee or tobacco?

It seems to me that in what I've seen of Finney's preaching, he's right on the mark. He targets things that are sins 99% of the time. It is only right to speak in generalities in these cases. Extreme literalism doesn't help anything. "Do you buy coffee and tea for yourself, while you neglect the poor?" is akin to "Do you watch movies on the television, while you neglect Bible and prayer?" I would say there are exceptions, but that over 99% of the people who watch movies on television are doing it for themself. I don't know who would argue with that statistic. Therefore watching movies on television is sin for 99% of people.

I might say something like, "Do you spend your time watching movies, spending your time on your own pleasure and neglecting the sacred duties of a Christian? Do you spend more time in front of the TV than in front of God's Holy Throne? How can you call yourself a Christian while you blatantly abuse the time God has given you, spending it on yourself and on your own pleasures? Why pretend, and say that you love God with all your heart, when you live for yourself more than for Him? When you don't consider what [i]He[/i] wants, but only consider what [i]you[/i] want?"

This is not the first discussion of this kind over the years that I have been involved in with Finney; but I think it must be one of the most cordial.

The reason why this treadmill exists or 'wheel spinning' as you phrased it is because there is not settled sense of assurance. An individual is left to be preoccupied with repentance. If they find a place of rest, just wait till Sunday rolls around and another sermon will have been devised to expose another area of shortcomings that keep this process never ending.

We continually grow in wisdom, holiness, and stature. We are continually conformed to the image of Christ. This doesn't mean we continue to be freed from sin. That ends once for all when we turn to God and set our affection on Him whole-heartedly.

But here is the challenge; unless the person is loving God with ALL their heart, soul, mind and strength and their neighbor as themselves then they are sinning and one unrepented sin will lead the soul to hell (in Oberlin theology). Now, add to that a definition of repentance the requires that the sin be utterly forsaken or it is not true repentance. That meaning, if I treat my neighbor in a way I would not want to be treated and I do this over and over again- I have not repented. In this type of theology passing by a stranded motorist without stopping every single time would be a sin each time you didn't stop to help.

If I take it upon myself to comb through my life in endless self-examination I will certainly despair of life.

...

I give a hearty handshake and slap on the back to anyone who read all of that ;-)

Growing in Christ,
Nile

They are both objective rulers because they are one and the same, they are the Law of God written in our minds and on our hearts: Love God and love others.

What do you make of the Law of God being written in our minds and on our hearts?

Do you believe all men have this? If not, then how do they get it?

PreachParsly wrote:

They are both objective rulers because they are one and the same, they are the Law of God written in our minds and on our hearts: Love God and love others.

What do you make of the Law of God being written in our minds and on our hearts?

Do you believe all men have this? If not, then how do they get it?

[b]Romans 1:18-21[/b]
[color=CC0000]For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.[/color]

[b]Romans 2:14-15[/b]
[color=CC0000]For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another[/color]

Also, it is very amazing to note that it says [b]your conscience can excuse you[/b].

Thanks Nile,

They are both objective rulers because they are one and the same, they are the Law of God written in our minds and on our hearts: Love God and love others

Hmmm, I guess I don't understand what objective means. In my mind I was using the word to try and describe a divine standard of behavior and character that doesn't change from person to person. By defining perfect righteousness as perfect intent (love God with all your heart) you have rendered mute my whole point for using the word objective. ;-) In other words, under Moral Government there is no divine obligation beyond one's personal conscience, which ostensibly includes the leading of the Holy Spirit and scripture.

We continually grow in wisdom, holiness, and stature. We are continually conformed to the image of Christ.

Amen Nile. Yet you see brother, to me this is the same as admitting I am falling short in my present conformity to Christ. It seems you are saying that this towering shortfall, this canyonesque gap, this profound inadequacy, needn't hinder me from meeting God's approval because

the conscience is the rudder determining right and wrong. We are only accountable to the level of revelation we have received; revelation which brings our conscience more in line with God's ultimate purposes.

So, let me attempt to articulate, respectfully and accurately as best I can, what I have learned about Moral Government theology so far.

1) God's Moral Government is just and right to require perfect obedience from every natural man and woman born, because...

2) God in his fairness has equipped every person from birth with a conscience that informs them of His divine law.

3) The natural man has disobeyed his natural conscience and thereby has disobeyed the law of God knowingly and willingly, resulting in the corruption of his conscience. Yet because all men at birth were given a conscience, despite this faculty being impaired through abuse and neglect, they are without excuse on the day of judgement.

4) Even so, God loves these very same men while they were still sinners, and desiring to forgive them, sends the Holy Spirit to reveal light to their darkened consciences, so that they can know God's law again, and truly have no more excuses before God, nor accuse God of being unjust or unmerciful.

5) God understands, as a merciful father who tolerates different standards of moral conduct in children of differing maturities, that men who had become moral cripples will require grace to learn to 'walk' again with their restored conscience, and that not everyone will be at the same level of revelation in their conscience.

6) However, God as a lawful father, expects perfect attentiveness to the conscience, and considers any and all neglect to the keeping of what the conscience reveals to be lawlessness and sin. Accordingly the Christian's disownership to the dictates of his own conscience is legal grounds for disownership from the father untill that Christian sincerely repents and asks forgiveness.

7) By wholeheartedly embracing the law of God, the example of Jesus, and the instruction of the Holy Spirit, a child of God is fed, nurtured, discliplined, and hopefully matured from imperfection to perfection in thought and behavior.

8) There was no payment of debt at the cross because God doesn't require payment to willingly discharge debt.

9) Though Jesus died because of the effects of my sin, my guilt was not imputed to him because this is contrary to the morality and fairness of God.

10) Not on my personal behalf did Jesus suffer punnishment in order that God's anger at me would be satiated, because God does not require himself nor his children to seek retribution, and he demonstrates daily he is able to forgive solely on the basis of divine authority and mercy alone.

Do I have at least an elementary understanding of Moral Government theology?

MC

You suppose God's commandments are grievous. They are not.

They would only be grievous if one had to keep all of them apart from a Spirit filled life. The key is the [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=19438&forum=34&9]Fruit of the Spirit.[/url]

I do not fear even the commandments of God. What I'm concerned with is how the convictions of men [i]become[/i] the doctrines of men [i]become[/i] the commandments of men [i]become[/i] the commandments of God.

You don't have to pay the debt. No one does.
Christ's blood didn't pay the debt; it was a sacrifice for sin to allow mercy.

That was Finney's view and I reject it. God demonstrated from the time of Adam that without the shedding of blood there is [u]no[/u] remission of sins (Heb 9:22). Remission means to give up a debt. If I believed not that Christ died for [i]my [/i]sins I would of all me be most miserable. It is the blood- applied to my conscience that allows me to affirm a real sense of reconciliation to God.

If you don't keep the commandments ("Be ye perfect" is a commandment!), you don't know God.

The context of that passage is that we should show mercy to everyone and not just select people. God makes it rain on the just and unjust, etc. If I have to be perfect as a standard of measure that I make Heaven- then I, and the vast multitudes of Christians are damned. God did not send Christ to save a single family on the earth as He did Noah. He sent Christ to give His life as a ransom for [i]many[/i].

Deduction based on revelation. How did you arrive at the conclusion of the Trinity?

By studying scripture. In no case did I arrive at the Trinity from "[i]biblical principals[/i]". We can make laws without end- a literal open ended New Testament 'Talmud' fencing in all the real commandments if we wish. But the Christian life is not lived in this way. The Christian life is lived as the Holy Spirit deals with us as individuals about things. Finney preached as if [i]everyone[/i] had to comply with his convictions or they were not saved.

I might say something like, "Do you spend your time watching movies, spending your time on your own pleasure and neglecting the sacred duties of a Christian? Do you spend more time in front of the TV than in front of God's Holy Throne? How can you call yourself a Christian while you blatantly abuse the time God has given you, spending it on yourself and on your own pleasures? Why pretend, and say that you love God with all your heart, when you live for yourself more than for Him? When you don't consider what He wants, but only consider what you want?"

I generally don't watch movies or TV. I try to maintain a God consciousness and be sensitive to when I may be doing something that is [i]grieving the Holy Spirit.[/i] This holds true also for secular music. However, I think the key is understanding that just because I do not spend 100% of my spare time with God does not mean I do not love Him. If I don't spend 100% of my spare time with my wife does not mean I do not love her either. Same with my kids.

We have to [i]allocate[/i] our love to all areas God has given to us that deserve our love. Where we get into trouble is when we befriend or love the world. When we take the love that belongs to the one and give it to another- this is [i]whoredom[/i]. This is what happened at Ephesus in Revelation 2. The people left their first love- the love they had at first.

What a dismall view of things! This isn't how it works at all. Your confusing justification with sanctification.

It would truly be nice if when Finney preached on various subjects designed to set the people about the work or wake them from slumber- that he did [u]not[/u] challenge their justification in the process. But from what I can see, this is not the case. When a person starts a sentence with, "How can you call yourself a Christian if...", then you have already challenged their status with God- even their sonship. But it is God that knows who are His children. Dare we charge a child of God with being illigitimate over some matter that has to be deduced from biblical principals and applied? In other words- when there is not an explicit "thou shalt not!" shall we make laws and rules that challenge folks assurance and salvation? To challenge a persons salvation, in my mind, over 'trivial' matters is a dangerous thing.

Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.(Romans 14)

You sum it up pretty good Robert! Straight scripture too, although I don't think you realized it.

The challenge is to be sensitive to God and know what battles to fight (so to speak). We cannot give our whole lives for the cause of others at the expense of many things God has said that we need to deal with first as a matter of priority. If I see a man bloody in a ditch that is one thing, but if I see him merely inconvenienced that is quite another. We need to know the difference and it takes the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Again, the overarching principle is still in effect: the conscience is the rudder determining right and wrong.

This is not completely true. The conscience is only as good as the information it has to work with. If a person is deceived- so will be their conscience. This is why folk can strap on bombs believing they are doing god a service. Also, we are just ONE person and we cannot save the world. The conscience will cry out to help and get involved in every crisis you come across. That is what it will do. You have to take into account also the leading of the Holy Spirit or the Devil will wear you out and have you in poverty thinking you are pleasing God.

"Examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith."

What does it mean to "Be in the Faith?" To know that you have to do a study of the life of Abraham. His is our example of what it is to be an heir to the righteousness of God that is by faith.

Also, it is very amazing to note that it says your conscience can excuse you.

Your conscience is not as faithful a guide as you may think. You need the Holy Spirit leading and guiding your life. This comes from spending time in communion with God. The Spirit and the word agree. But the conscience and the word do not always agree. The reason being is that the conscience makes decisions based on what you believe to be true. If one can change your beliefs- they can alter the decisions your conscience makes.

This is the trouble I have with people that trouble folk's consciences with their own personal convictions. If they are a person of stature and reputation they may sway the conscience into ruling things as sin that are no more than a man's pet peeves or personal convictions.

Yes, I believe all men have this. I have not considered this point extensively, as it seems plain, but if you believe otherwise, I would be very interested in hearing!

I don't believe anyone has the law of God written on their mind and heart other than born again Christians. No one else in history past had this.
This is one of the marks of the new covenant. If you're not in the new covenant you don't have it.

Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 [b]For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:[/b]

As you can see this is one of the very things prophecied about the new covenant. I don't believe this is the same as your conscience. The verse you pointed to in Romans shows this, but I think you're applying it much differently than me.

Romans 2:13-15(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

The conscience bears witness with the work of the law written on their heart. Since it bears witness with it, it seems safe to assume they aren't the same thing. I believe this verse it talking about born again Christians who are Gentiles. I see these next few verses carrying the same theme.

Rom 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

I don't believe anyone has the law of God written on their mind and heart other than born again Christians. No one else in history past had this.

What are you proposing the law written in our minds and on our hearts is?
Is it not to love God and love others?
Who has not known these things?

Robert:

That was Finney's view and I reject it. God demonstrated from the time of Adam that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins (Heb 9:22). Remission means to give up a debt. If I believed not that Christ died for my sins I would of all me be most miserable. It is the blood- applied to my conscience that allows me to affirm a real sense of reconciliation to God.

If I have to be perfect as a standard of measure that I make Heaven- then I, and the vast multitudes of Christians are damned.

To challenge a persons salvation, in my mind, over 'trivial' matters is a dangerous thing.

According to the Bible, any of these things will send you to hell.

And what about headcoverings? Paul taught that all women should wear them. What do you think? Do you believe they are cultural and do not apply to us?

Now look what we have...we have Paul giving a teaching that has exceptions...although it applied to everyone whom he spoke to. He wasn't setting up legalistic fences. He was applying the Law of God to the situation. In this case, loving others by being respectful and being in your respective roles.

The challenge is to be sensitive to God and know what battles to fight (so to speak). We cannot give our whole lives for the cause of others at the expense of many things God has said that we need to deal with first as a matter of priority. If I see a man bloody in a ditch that is one thing, but if I see him merely inconvenienced that is quite another. We need to know the difference and it takes the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The conscience is only as good as the information it has to work with.

his is why folk can strap on bombs believing they are doing god a service.

Your conscience is not as faithful a guide as you may think. You need the Holy Spirit leading and guiding your life. This comes from spending time in communion with God. The Spirit and the word agree. But the conscience and the word do not always agree. The reason being is that the conscience makes decisions based on what you believe to be true. If one can change your beliefs- they can alter the decisions your conscience makes.

Can you give an example of a sin which you commit without your conscience telling you it is wrong? I think no such sin exists.

I have never come across a time my conscience has not agreed with the word.

It is practically impossible to work against our conscience without it screaming loudly at us with guilt (even if an action is NOT wrong). Remember Peter and the vision of the animals on the sheet? That vision was God’s way of helping Peter overcome a powerful “preset” on his conscience, and avoid committing a terrible sin: withholding the good news from the Gentiles.

You see, our conscience is unreliable – and filled with BLIND SPOTS.

There is a good reason why we see so many divergent bents among God’s people, and why we need each other – especially those who think outside of our box. Others see our own blind spots, and vice versa. I used to say: If you want to know what’s wrong with the Pentecostals, ask the Baptists and if you want to know what’s wrong with the Baptists ask the Pentecostals. (And if you want to know what's wrong with you, ask your spouse8-) - AFTER the honeymoon)

No one can be a suicide bomber without knowing it's wrong.

Rom. 2:14 comes to mind when I think of ancient tribes in New Guinea – who threw their children into the river in the ravine as sacrifices to appease the gods. The tribe indeed possessed a universal truth: There is a higher power and if you do wrong, it can punish you. Note that the context of Rom. 1:20 is God's wrath, and indeed God's wrath is manifested in the natural elements (product of the curse of sin).

However, in their darkened minds, people come to some very darkened conclusions: ex You can preserve your well-being if you can appease this diety/power. So people sacrifice just about anything/anyone – even themselves to please/appease one's god. They are willing to harm others for the sake of their own security - ex going to war to defend their god (whether you call it “Christian” or otherwise). And the conscience says that it is right.

What we believe is what we SEE in the Bible, and what we do not believe, we don’t see.

Over the years I have heard all kinds of people say that they believe every word in the Bible. What they mean is that they know that all of it is supposed to be true. But to assume that their conscience is perfectly aligned with all of God’s truths is self-deception, and often obvious to everybody but themselves. Of course their “rightness” seems right to THEIR conscience.

The conscience is shaped and programmed by the material it has been fed with over the years – from the cradle. Sure, a person who had a loving family and learned good Christian truths likely has a better conscience than one who knew only hatred and strife and watched too much TV.

However, even the best conscience is flawed, and that’s why Jesus, through his death and resurrection offers us something much more reliable. However, his offer is something that violates the concience of our natural minds. It involves death and that strongly violates our conscience!

Diane

'Trivial' matters...I know what you mean, but look at these Biblical 'trivial' matters: bitterness, outburst of anger, cursing, lewd jokes, back talking to authorities, selfish ambition, idolatry, loving the world.

What you are describing are specific sins that are listed in various places in the New Testament (GAl 5, etc.). This are not trivial sins; what I am referring to are 'sins' that are deduced from these passages and applied.

And what about headcoverings? Paul taught that all women should wear them. What do you think? Do you believe they are cultural and do not apply to us?

It is a matter of viewpoint. I respect both sides of the subject. But, honestly, we have a lot bigger fish to fry right now.

Yes, and your only accountable to the amount of information you have to work with. Could you give an example otherwise?
If something is wrong to your conscience, it is wrong. If it is not wrong to your conscience, it is not wrong. (If you even have a conscience to listen to.)

Well, since I was a child I have been taught that I'm one sin away from damnation. This is why many holiness people pray a sinners type repentance prayer every night before bed. But I have come to know now, from reading the scriptures and appreciating not just the 'strict' teachings, but also those that imply God [i]really[/i] loves me. I have come to realize that God is not seeking opportunity to damn my soul at His first opportunity. Reprogramming my consciance from that false teaching has taken some time; but I am getting there.

No one can be a suicide bomber without knowing it's wrong.

I disagree. They have been taught from childhood false teachings that have deceived them. The conscience is not a moral agent- it is a judgment seat. The basis of it's decisions is what you [i]believe[/i] to be true. Finney was only partly right on his teachings on the conscience.

I also believe the conscience and the word agree. I have never come across a time my conscience has not agreed with the word.

This is only true if you study the scriptures. If your trust was in the Quran it would in time reprogram to judge what you believe to be true. This is one of the reasons why your mind needs to be constantly renewed.

The Pharisees are a good example./quote]
No, the Pharisees are a horrible example. The didn't clean the inside of the cup.

Paul himself believed that he was doing God a service by trying to annihilate Christians. Remember Paul was trying VERY HARD to be a good follower of God. And he himself would say that he did NOT realize that he was wrong. “I acted in ignorance and unbelief” 1Tim. 1:13

Which is why God had mercy on Him. God always forgives when we act in ignorance. Paul was here specifically talking about persecuting the Church, which he knew not to be the true Church.

Paul was a sinner, and he knew it. The Law showed it to him.

You see, our conscience is unreliable – and filled with BLIND SPOTS.

Are you suggesting that we are held accountable for our blind spots? For something completely beyond our control?

The way of peace they do NOT know. Rom. 3:17… darkened in their understanding, etc.

And why don't they know? Because they do not seek to know. Because they do not wish to know. Therefore they are accountable and are held responsible.

Again, are you suggesting that we are held accountable to what we do not know?

Sure, a person who had a loving family and learned good Christian truths likely has a better conscience than one who knew only hatred and strife and watched too much TV.

The point still holds: you are accountable to what truth you have and no more!

However, even the best conscience is flawed, and that’s why Jesus, through his death and resurrection offers us something much more reliable.

"Flawed" as in what? Can you give an example of going against your conscience to do what is right? Or vice-versa?
Paul says that if our conscience condemns us, we should fear. If our conscience does not condemn us, do not fear.

It is a matter of viewpoint. I respect both sides of the subject. But, honestly, we have a lot bigger fish to fry right now.

I hope you see what my point was in mentioning the headcovering. Paul did the very thing you accuse Finney of.

This is why many holiness people pray a sinners type repentance prayer every night before bed.

Friend, this is pathetic. It seems like people who do this don't know what holiness is, but live out of fear.

I have come to realize that God is not seeking opportunity to damn my soul at His first opportunity.

As I have said innumerable times, it is not about God damning you at the first opportunity, it is about you turning your back on God.

You are arguing for "small" sins. Specifically which are the sins a Christian can commit? Which sins can't they commit?

There are no small sins. All sin is unrighteousness.

They have been taught from childhood false teachings that have deceived them. The conscience is not a moral agent- it is a judgment seat.

I would very much like to meet the suicide bomber who knew 100% that what they were doing was right. They would be a very holy person, and very fit for the kingdom of God. Except that this is impossible! Does it mean nothing to you that the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment?

And what of this: I have never done anything wrong without knowing it! No one I know has ever done anything wrong without knowing it!

If your trust was in the Quran it would in time reprogram to judge what you believe to be true.

God's eternal attributes are revealed from heaven. All are without excuse. Being raised to believe the Quran doesn't mean you don't know right from wrong.

Here is my summary:

[b]We are only accountable for what we can do and what we know to do.
We are not accountable for what we can't do and what we don't know to do.[/b]

I hear ya, it just doesn't make sense to me yet.

What are you proposing the law written in our minds and on our hearts is?

It's what every person has as a result of being in the new covenant. :-) You're not born with it or everyone in the world (past present or future) has/is part of the new covenant from birth. Do you believe that? It seems impossible to have been part of the new covenant before the covenant was in place.

Is it not to love God and love others?
Who has not known these things?

Rather than be ambiguous, I'll just say it plainly. It's the receiving of a new nature. It's not something you can do in yourself, since you weren't born with it.

we are only accountable for what we can do and what we know to do.
We are not accountable for what we can't do and what we don't know to do.

Am I hearing that as long as you can’t be BLAMED, you are off the hook? (Didn't Adam and Eve try that?)

This “accountability” theology didn't work with my kids. They had an amazing way of absolving their accountability. “But Mom, I didn’t mean to ...” By the time Mom figures out if an action is deliberate or not, the spilled milk has seeped through the floor into the basement.

The fact is now the wrong has to be made right. In other words, If you spilled the milk on purpose or not, you still have to clean it up. (Hopefully after that restorative procedure, the child is more conscious of what his appendages are doing.)

Frankly, I beleive that Finney's “accountably” theology is flawed – the result of running with a few verses too far and layering them on some faulty presuppositions! It lets some off the hook and condemns others – for the SAME SIN. Who decides what sin is “on purpose”: ex: We all “know” that the criminal kills on purpose, but the hypochondriac can’t help his afflictions. Do we seethe at one and feel sorry for the other? It could just be that the same root sin afflicts them both and they need the same solution: They are trying to make life work for them apart from Christ, and they need to turn to him to set them free.

Consider this: None of us is accountable for being born with a sinful nature separated from God, but we are ALL accountable for our response to God’s remedy: to accept or reject Christ’s Life. This view does much more for those in sin bondages.

Here’s my thinking: If our theology doesn’t work in the school of real life, and only in ideology class, it just may be flawed. Time to go back to the Word.

PS Is my earlier point about the filters of the conscience proving to be true?:-o

Diane

Does it mean nothing to you that the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment?

Certainly I have preached, taught and written extensively of this fact for years. I still maintain that the conscience is a judgment seat that makes it's decisions based on what a person sincerely believes to be true. the Holy Spirit weighs in on this also. I do NOT view the conscience and the Holy Spirit as the same thing. The conscience will cause a man to want to run from God. The Holy Spirit convinces also- but will draw men to Himself. Moreover the Holy Spirit and the word [i]always[/i] agree. The conscience and the word do not always agree.

And what of this: I have never done anything wrong without knowing it! No one I know has ever done anything wrong without knowing it!

Is this true?

They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you [i]will think that he doeth God service[/i]. (John 16:2)

Paul believed he was doing God's will by persecuting and killing Christians. And yet what did he say?

Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, "Brethren, [i]I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day[/i]." (Acts 23:1 NASB)

We have heard repeatedly that Finney's view is to the effect that Christ did not pay our sin debt. That the cross only made it possible for God to forgive our sins because Christ was made an example of on the cross and public reverence for the law would be sustained. This is by far the most troubling of all of Finney's views. Jesus' death and resurrection are central to Christianity. Nothing is as plain as this.

The blood of Jesus Christ paid the debt for our sins.

And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not [i]redeemed[/i] with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: (I Peter 1)

Notice the contrast between 'money' and the blood. The settled question is that a debt was owed. The focus is on the price paid. Was that price paid with siver and gold? The price paid to remove the offense was the [i]precious[/i] blood of Christ. No amount of money could have removed the offense. It took the precious blood of Christ. Finney might well declare it was the infinite love of the Divine Governor that pardons the sin- But God as the supreme JUDGE declares us just on the basis of what Christ has done upon the cross alone. It is through faith in that finished work that we are made to be in right standing with God.

Hi, Robert,
I wonder if you could do me a favour. As you saw in my earlier contemplations, I am examining these points about debt payment, and so I wonder if you could provide scriptural teachings to support them – esp from the NT.

You posted 1 Pet. 1:18, but that one doesn’t seem to relate. It says that God’s children “were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers.”

I am working on a word study on remission, and will see where that leads me. Maybe I’ll find some verses.

Could you also share a scripture that expresses this point:

It is through faith in that finished work that we are made to be in right standing with God.

By the way, in no way am I wishing to defend the idea “that Christ was made an example of on the cross and public reverence for the law would be sustained. “

That conflicts with Rom. 7, Eph. 2:15: Christ abolished … the law with its commandments and regulation and Col. 2:13-15 God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written code, with its regulations that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Quite a different “public” message!

Diane

I wonder if you could do me a favour. As you saw in my earlier contemplations, I am examining these points about debt payment, and so I wonder if you could provide scriptural teachings to support them – esp from the NT.

I think it is important to note first of all that the early New Testament Saints did not have a New Testament, but drew their understanding of the New Covenant from the Old Testament. In effect, the New Testament is a commentary on the Old. It is impossible to really understand [u]S[/u]in (the dynamic) and sins (the act) without starting at the beginning and allowing the problem to be identified and God's solution to be revealed.

God began with man with one major [i]responsibility[/i] and one simple commandment.

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2)

When Adam was not faithful to 'keep' the Garden, the Serpent entered and began corrupting Him. This is one of the oldest and missed concepts in all the Bible; [i]prevention[/i]. In Judges chapter 2 we find that the children of Israel were told to throw down the altars of the former inhabitants of the land- but they refused to do it and God would not drive their enemies out- but they became a thorn in Israe's side. God expects man to take proper measures to make sure the enemy does not have free reighn to come in and corrupt. That is what he does and that is what he [u]will[/u] do.

The [i]penalty[/i] for eating from the Tree of Knowledge was [i]death[/i]. Death is separation. You die and your soul and spirit separate from the body. Eternal death is eternal separation from God. It is important to understand this. The greatest penalty for sin was leveled in the beginning- separation from God. This is what Hell is. The worst part about hell is not the flames- it is the [i]absence[/i] of God. The Psalmist in Psalm 51 cried "take not thy Holy Spirit from me!" This is man's potentially greatest punishment, always has been and always will be. It should be our greatest 'concern'.

You will note that the Old Testament system of laws began with 7 Noachide laws (by tradition) that became 10 Commandments (the Decalogue) and ultimately were codified into 613 laws (365 Don't and 248 do's) each having a specific punishment. Many do not know that the Jews administered a number of 'lashes' as the penalty for breaking many of the laws. Some carried the death penalty. Some carried being "cut off from the people" or [i]excommunication[/i]. Some required an offering of some sort. Often it is said that 'sin' is 'sin'. This may be true in a sense; but certainly all sins are not created equal. The proof of this is found in the equity of the punishment. Some received lashes and some received the death penalty.

The Old Testament system of laws was in one sense a way of [i]quantifying[/i] sin. there are lots of different words for sin in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is very sin 'conscious'. In fact, there would now be a way to measure sin (the acts). The seriousness of sin was understood by the the judgments that were leveled upon the people that committed them. Some were carried out by the people. Achan comes to mind. Some were carried out by God Himself as in the case of Uzziah.

In time the Sanhedrin would become the 'Supreme Court' of the Jews. There was an entire legal system in place in the time of Jesus that dealt with sins to deal out punishments. There was a complete sacrificial system that dealt with sins. Many pictures are given as an allegory of what Christ would ultimately come to do. They all have to be examined if we are ever going to understand the Cross. It is impossible to look at the legal system of the US or Western nations and understand God's justice. You simply cannot start off with that framework. It's like trying to open a lock with the wrong key.

When sins were committed in the Old Testament blood was shed. In fact, if each family were to bring a sacrifice at a given event imagine the bloodshed? We have never seen that much blood. Blood would have literraly have been everywhere. The priests would have been covered in it. It would have had to have been the most gruesome and sobering sight our minds can imagine. What would they be seeing? [i]And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without the shedding of blood there is no remission[/i].

Hebrews is the book that explains the Old Covenant and it's sacrificial system. It reveals the allegory of the Old in the reality of the New. Hebrews 2 is very sobering:

Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and [u]every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward[/u]; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

The implication of this verse is clear. For those that neglect this great salvation, every transgression and disobedience is going to receive a just recompense of reward. Sin itself brings death. But coupled with this is the full revelation of the Old Testament means of quantifying sins. Add to this certain factors that may increase the seriousness of the crime. There are 'aggravating circumstances' to sin.

“But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My master will be a long time in coming,’ and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will [u]cut him in pieces[/u], and assign him a place with the unbelievers. “And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more. (Luke 12)

This is an allusion to what I mentioned earlier how the Old Testament would require a certain number of lashes for certain crimes. The new revelation here is that the knowledge of God's will ratchets up the penalty from few to many for the same crime.

The reason why I do not have to face every transgression and disobedience is because Christ paid that penalty. Criminals owe a 'debt' to society. Sinners owe a 'debt' to God and it is quantified and written down. For the heirs to the righteousness of God by faith Christ has paid the debt. For those who trod under foot the Son of God and count the blood of the covenant whereby they were sanctified an unholy thing- God is going to [i]repay[/i].

The key to understanding this is to follow the revelation of the Old Testament into the New Testament. Where Finney went wrong was that he tried to make the atonement and imputed righteousness make sense to American lawyers. American law is not the construct under which we can understand the bible.

So am I right (?) there’s no NT verse that says:

….Christ paid that penalty

While, I’m not disagreeing that Christ may have paid our debts (thus spare us from hell) I feel that I need to maintain the same emphasises that Paul did, and not tilt the balance in favour of a precept that is not even explicitly mentioned in the NT.

Thus far the verses that I have accumulated regarding the subject “Why did Christ die” have to do with being (actually) set free from sin (as opposed to set free from the divine penalty of it) … am still looking……….

Robert, I wonder if you could comment on the verses I have included, and relate them to your comments about “Christ paid the penalty”.

Oh, and also, what did the OT sacrifices actually symbolize: the taking away of sin – ie cleansing, washing, destroying, or the taking away the legal charge? Or maybe both. I need to find some verses on that too, really. In other words, is forgiveness based on the washing away of sins – ie our old nature, in Christ, or the fact that the debt is paid.

Right now I have difficulty seeing how the payment of debt makes anyone a Christian as the NT would define one. But if it is true, why can’t it be applied universally – ie, everyone is off the hook. (I know that some believe this) Of course we know that it cannot be applied universally. However, what makes it actually “take” for some but not others. Surely it can’t be by “faith”, because as I have said, lots of people have faith that their debts are paid, but they do not walk in Christ. If not by faith, then is it by works? (as I fear some fall)

Diane

(I fear that I am playing the devil’s advocate, but to me, this is important stuff)

Right now I have difficulty seeing how the payment of debt makes anyone a Christian as the NT would define one.

As you read through Romans you find a sequence to how God deals with sins (the acts) and The Sin (the dynamic). I think you will find that God deals with the whole subject one step at a time- though one could argue how these separate out. The thing that I need to stress is that we often want sound bite answers to complicated questions.

So am I right (?) there’s no NT verse that says:
Quote:
….Christ paid that penalty

Depending on how you interpret Colossians 2:13, 14 there is.

When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, [u]having canceled out the certificate of debt[/u] consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (Col. 2:13, 14 NASB)

Right now I have difficulty seeing how the payment of debt makes anyone a Christian as the NT would define one. But if it is true, why can’t it be applied universally – ie, everyone is off the hook.

You are missing the fact that the finished work of the Cross has to be [i]appropriated[/i] to an individual. It is not universally applied. This is why it is important to know who what text is addressed to. Some texts are directed at the saints and have no relationship whatsoever to a sinner. Ephesians 2 is an example. Until a person is quickened they cannot relate to Ephesians 2, etc.

The progress of this is most interesting to me. It seems like we are headed towards a discussion about the “mystery” that Paul speaks about in Eph. 2:4 “…this mystery made known to me by revelation…… which was not made known to men in other generations”

Depending on how you interpret Colossians 2:13, 14 there is.

When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (Col. 2:13, 14 NASB)

This verse seems to say that Christ solved our sin problem by making us alive in Him. As a result our new life is not under the law, and so, that renders the law inoperable. (by virtue of the death of our old self) Of course, that could not apply to the unredeemed because they are not made new. THAT is why we can’t apply Christ’s forgiveness universally. The unredeemed are still under the curse of the law.

According to Col. 2: 13,14 it was the LAW that was hostile to us and condemned us (separated us from God), and THAT is what Christ abolished on the cross. That is what his sacrificial blood did. It was a sacrifice that took our sins AWAY by taking us into death and a resurrection. (something quite other than debt payment)

My thoughts about the Old Covenant:
I’m beginning to see that the OC Law, while it had its divine purpose, also had limitations - not merely by the fact that it was symbolic and could not give new Life, but it seems that even the symbols themselves could not fully express the “mystery”. It could not fully embrace the full implications of sin (as the NT did) nor could it fully picture the “mystery” of God’s salvation. Also, I fear that an old covenant mindset keeps us focused on the “list of sins” and not on our total depravity (fallen sin nature) and that makes it hard to precede towards the NT truths about redemption s we see in Eph. 2. ”as it has now(ie post-OT) been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.” Eph. 2:4

Until a person is quickened they cannot relate to Ephesians 2,

Maybe this is why debt payment teaching is so often overshadowed by Eph 2.

I understand that Christ rescued us from the stronghold of the curse (sin, bondages, etc) and the law which condemned us. And THAT “defangs” the devil. “the ruler of the kingdom of the air” We are under new ownership (no longer his) – and have a new home:
“And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, …” Eph. 2:6
The Church is God's property - rescued from the devil!!!

What would happen to some of our theology if we interpret Rev 20:2 in light of the above comment. “...an angel… seized the... devil... and bound him...” ?

“holding him back.” 2 Thes. 2:6

Thus endeth my thoughts ….. so far…

Challenges to this are welcome! After all, Christ’s redemption is something far wider and deeper then any of us can fully grasp.

Diane

After all, Christ’s redemption is something far wider and deeper then any of us can fully grasp.

I think is is important also to understand that there are many different ways that have been revealed to express or reveal the sin problem and it's remedy. There is not one way to express it- but many different pictures. In other words, in many cases it is not one or the other- it is [i]both[/i] (so to speak).

Our sins have to be remitted or we cannot be saved. We come to the throne of Grace by the blood of Christ. However one is willing to accept what God has revealed, this truth remains. No one comes to God but by the blood.

Another issue is one of the blood of sprinkling that binds the New Testament to the believer. It can be argued that when Abel died his blood cried from the ground for vengeance. The blood of a sacrificial animal bound the Old Testament believers to the Old Covenant. What did their blood 'speak'? We cannot say particularly- but we do know that there was no mercy under two or three witnesses under that covenant. Eye for eye- tooth for tooth, etc.

But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, [u]that speaketh better things that that of Abel.[/u] (Heb. 12)

What does the blood of Christ 'speak' that is better than Abel?

(Where did everybody go?:-o )

No one comes to God but by the blood

The word “debt” occurs only a few times, and when it does it is mostly linked with “cancel”. I like noting how words are linked ex: “preach” and “gospel” typically occur together – significant I think. Cancel and debts seems to express the concept of forgiveness = remission.

Our sins have to be remitted or we cannot be saved..

The word remission (Gr. aphiemi) is our modern word “forgiveness”. In the G/K we see other NT renderings: let go, cancel, remit, leave, forgive, letting pass, pass over, even the word divorce (release) - like the scapegoat did, and Jesus did. But what of “debt payment”? I don’t see it – even in all the examples covered in Verrugge’s Dict of NT Theology. I do, however catch an interesting comment: “In Paul the terms aphiemi and aphesis virtually disappear. … The fact that forgiveness is not merely a remission of past guilt, but includes a total deliverance from the power of sin and restoration to fellowship with God …”

And:
Forgiveness comes about through the renewed realization of forgiveness in the real situations of every day life, with their call to decision, and not in some timeless application. (ie forgiveness is not overlooking sin apart from repentance ex Ananias and Sapphira) Take that back into the OT, and I also see a close link with divine forgiveness (remission) and repentance, (but nothing so far that links with debts.)

What does the blood of Christ 'speak' that is better than Abel?

“Abel’s blood cried out for justice and retribution whereas the blood of Jesus shed on the cross speaks of forgiveness and reconciliation.” (footnotes in my study Bible)

Obviously there will always be different views on “debt payment” but regardless, I’m seeing that of utmost importance is the message of forgiveness, and apart from continual participation in it, we cannot please God. Surely it is significant that Jesus adds a double PostScript to “The Lord’s Prayer”:

“For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.

AND: (repeated in the negative)

But if you do not forgive men their sins, your father will not forgive your sin.” Matt. 6:14,15

If we major on the majors, we should hopefully stay on the straight and narrow track.

More findings:
"penalty" ... If he cannot afford a lamb he is to bring two doves or two young pigions to the Lord as a penalty for his sin, one for a sin offering and the other for a burn offering... " Lev. 5:7 also Lev. 5:7,15, 6:6 (no where else)
- seem to relate to offences, also unintential (5:15).
No NT references to Christ being a penalty offering.

Diane

So, am I tracking right?

The concept of debt is linked to the idea of [i]propitiation[/i]. I have given the example from Hebrews 2. Every transgression and disobedience is to receive a just recompense of reward to those that reject salvation. That is, there is a penalty that has to be paid for each transgression. Some with few and some with many stripes. Many pictures of this. In some cases it is referred to as 'wages' that have to be paid. Christ was the sin bearer.

The word “debt” occurs only a few times, and when it does it is mostly linked with “cancel”. I like noting how words are linked ex: “preach” and “gospel” typically occur together – significant I think. Cancel and debts seems to express the concept of forgiveness = remission.

It is interesting that on the Old Testament God passed over when He saw the blood. Hebrews speaks of the blood 'speaking'. The important thing to remember is that the blood of Christ is what has enjoined us to the New Covenant. It is a better covenant established upon better promises with a blood that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Abel’s blood cried out for justice and retribution whereas the blood of Jesus shed on the cross speaks of forgiveness and reconciliation.

This spells trouble for an Oberlin type theology because the Testator's blood is pleading for reconciliation and forgiveness when the terms of the covenant are broken.

(Where did everybody go? )

Well, we are kind of just talking in circles now so they may have rolled out. ;-)

I found this quote by Spurgeon on THE SIN BEARER:

I. The first is, THE BEARING OF OUR SINS by our Lord; "Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree." These words in plainest terms assert that our Lord Jesus did really bear the sins of His people. How literal is the language! Words mean nothing if substitution is not stated here. I do not know the meaning of the fifty-third of Isaiah if this is not its meaning. Hear the prophet's words: "The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all;" "for the transgression of my people was He stricken;" "He shall bear their iniquities:" "He was numbered with the transgressors, and He bare the sin of many."

I cannot imagine that the Holy Spirit would have used language so expressive if He had not intended to teach us that our Saviour did really bear our sins, and suffer in our stead. What else can be intended by texts like these: "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many" (Heb. 9:28); "He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor. 5:21); "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree" (Gal. 3:13); "Christ also hath loved us, and hath given Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour" (Eph. 5:2); "Once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb. 9:26)? I say modestly, but firmly, that these Scriptures either teach the bearing of our sins by our Lord Jesus, or they teach nothing. In these days, among many errors and denials of truth, there has sprung up a teaching of "modern thought" which explains away the doctrine of substitution and vicarious sacrifice. One wise man has gone so far as to say that the transference of sin or righteousness is impossible, and another creature of the same school has stigmatized the idea as immoral.

It does not much matter what these modern haters of the cross may dare to say; but, assuredly, that which they deny, denounce, and deride, is the cardinal doctrine of our most holy faith, and is as clearly in Scripture as the sun is in the heavens. Beloved, as we suffer through the sin of Adam, so are we saved through the righteousness of Christ. Our fall was by another, and so is our rising again: we are under a system of representation and imputation, gainsay it who may. To us, the transference of our sin to Christ is a blessed fact clearly revealed in the Word of God, and graciously confirmed in the realizations of our faith. In that same chapter of Isaiah we read, "Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows," and we perceive that this was a matter of fact, for He was really, truly, and emphatically sorrowful; and, therefore, when we read that He "bare our sins in His own body on the tree," we dare not flitter it away, but assuredly believe that in very deed He was our Sin-Bearer. Possible or impossible, we sing with full assurance

"He bore on the tree the sentence for me."

Had the sorrow been figurative, the sin-bearing might have been mythical; but the one fact is paralleled by the other. There is no figure in our text; it is a bare, literal fact: "Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree." Oh, that men would give up cavilling! To question and debate at the cross, is an act near akin to the crime of the soldiers when they parted His garments among them, and cast lots for His vesture.

Note how personal are the terms here employed! How expressly the Holy Ghost speaketh! "Who His own self bare our sins in His own body." It was not by delegation, but "His own self"; and it was not in imagination, but "in His own body." Observe, also, the personality from our side of the question, He "bare our sins," that is to say, my sins and your sins. There is a sort of cadence of music here, "His own self," "our sins." As surely as it was Christ's own self that suffered on the cross, so truly was it our own sins that Jesus bore in His own body on the tree. Our Lord has appeared in court for us, accepting our place at the bar: "He was numbered with the transgressors." Nay, more, He has appeared at the place of execution for us, and has borne the death-penalty upon the gibbet of doom in our stead. In propria persona, our Redeemer has been arraigned, though innocent; has come under the curse, though for ever blessed; and has suffered to the death, though He had done nothing worthy of blame. "He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed."

(Where did everybody go? )

Well, we are kind of just talking in circles now so they may have rolled out

Were' still here. :-)

For a second there I was worried that poor Nile was feeling like Bruce Lee in one of those martial arts movies where the ninjas just keep coming at him from all directions. In the interest of letting the camera zoom in on some interesting dialogue to move the plot along,... I thought I would pause and let you guys get some traction in your fruitful conversation here. :-D

My attention remains rapt though! I still have a couple of questions that can be inserted in a little while.

Blessings,

MC

we are kind of just talking in circles

Hebrews 2

By the way, I do not believe that I have been questioning the words of Spurgeon. But I didn’t see him saying:

He bore on the tree the sentence for me."

Today I asked an evangelical friend why she believed Jesus had to die. She said, ‘To pay the penalty for sin.” Interestingly, this lady has never showed any indication of salvation whatsoever, but assumes she’s saved based on this transaction. When I started talking about Christ’s new life, she got bored.

That has reinforced my conviction that the best answer to the question “Why did Jesus have to die?” is this: to redeem us from the bondage of darkness (ie bear our sins) and to give us new and abundant life in him! It is all about a CHANGED life – forgiven! I will try to be more conscious of the need to bring out that truth.

I thought I’ve been saying just exactly this:

"Once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb. 9:26)

I am not sure what this means:

we are under a system of representation and imputation, gainsay it who may

Well, I call it a day for sure….

Night, night……..

Diane

poor Nile

Oh, yes, Nile, if you are still hanging around these parts, I wish to say, I'm sorry for lacking graciousness towards you in my last post (a while ago, now).

Do come back. And I'll back off with this marathon for a while.

Diane

Diane, you and Robert are doing fine. Please keep dialoguing if you have further to go.

And I'm sure Nile knows how much we appreciate each others's opinions around here. I've sensed the same mutual respect from him throughout this conversation.

Actually, for me this whole topic has migrated offline into the office around here. I've been able to share what I've learned so far and to get some interesting discussions going.

And, in the interest of always reinforcing common ground, this conversation has helped me to see how we can exhort each other to be sensitive to one another's consciences, and not just our own. This is perhaps another way of preferring one another.

Oh looky here...I'm segwaying into one of my questions for Nile.;-) Nile respectfully presented the challenge to name a sin that can be a sin while slipping past the radar of our conscience. As an important precursor to that question I would like to examine the infamous but occasionally unavoidable conundrum of the "Ethical Delimna"---where the Christian is forced to choose between two unavoidable conflicts of conscience. I believe the question of whether or not there is such a thing as 'unnoticed' sin is never more settled then when one of them stealthy heartbreaks attacks your blindspot.

A couple of examples:

1) Two businessmen own a medium sized distributor of beer and tobacco products that is distressed financially with weak cashflow and a terrible debt/equity ratio. Yet, praise God, this financial crisis leads one the men to seek God and become a believer in Christ. This young believer is immediately convicted over the product line of his business and wants to find a line of work more fitting to the light he has been given. However, he is also currently in excessive debt to two banks and has his partner to consider, as well as employees.

If he continues to sell product he violates his conscience. He is more then willing to walk away without any compensation, but such a moral convenience is still a clear failure of fiduciary duty and perhaps a poor witness to his partner. This option violates his conscience. He pleads with his partner to consider selling to honor the bank convenants, but the only opportunity that arises is a short-sell which would still lead to a default with the banks. This too violates his conscience. Then he considers that if he did sell such a wicked business, allowing it to survive would also violate his conscience. Likewise he considers praying for God to restore the business also a violation of his conscience.

All the while this man is living this delimna, he is attending church, studying the word, and growing in painful awareness of the wrongness of his business. To navigate the choppy waters of his awakened concience, he will need the grace of the Lord. Is there such grace in Finney's theology? This young Christian ackowledges that he can do no perfect thing, and cries out to God to open a door of esacpe. But untill the answer comes, there will have to be patience and faith in the suffiency of the grace of his savior.

2) A young Christian couple with two young children are full of zeal for the Lord, and make a habit of giving quite generously to their local church, and needy people in the community. One day many years later the couple meets with a Christian financial counselor who is shocked to learn how much money they have gifted over the years while neglecting their savings. The advisor scolds them for being irresponsible not only to themselves but also to their children. For the first time the earnest couple becomes conflicted and feels guilty about the very behavior that they were sure was righteous. Now they just felt foolishly religous.

Soon, in consideration of their children, they stop giving so much and begin to address the neglect they feel guilty of towards their children. This choice leads to more guilt at the church which is reinforced by phone calls from church leadership. In the end they stopp attending their local church in order to avoid the pressure to give. This violates their conscience. Because they recieved no understanding from their church leadership, they become resentful towards churches in general. This too violates their conscience, but they do not know how to re-enter church life without feeling like they are failing to give enough money.

Because these two scenarios center around money, and not are not life and death, they are just some of the easier conflicts of conscience that real life brings. Real life is messy as Diane says. Sometimes the way ahead is not a straight line but a ball of tangled string. It may be the tangle we've made ourselves...but after repentence there the tangle remains for us to untangle. If having a perfectly straight conscience determines our eternal destiny, we better untangle it fast! Sometimes our hearts can be cleaned up much faster then the messes we've made... we have to learn to live with grace and to trust God that he will speak to the waves and lead us to a peaceful harbor.

Will Finney's theology allow the people in these examples to remain saved? It is one thing for the conscience to follow a linear progression towards salvation as extrapolated in a graph between the starting point of damning sin and the end point of holy perfection, but another when it must survive the incalculable wreckage of human choices. Can Finney's theology ultimately save a repentent Christian who experiences the shame of having no perfect choice before them?

What happens when we are awakened from our sinful dreams of self-righteousness and find ourselves drowning in the depts of our own stirring conscience? Sometimes we can't pull ourselves out of the miry clay. Sometimes we just need to be plumb saved.

Blessings,

MC

Today I asked an evangelical friend why she believed Jesus had to die. She said, ‘To pay the penalty for sin.” Interestingly, this lady has never showed any indication of salvation whatsoever, but assumes she’s saved based on this transaction. When I started talking about Christ’s new life, she got bored.

I had a similar discussion with a couple different people. They are amazingly willing to believe a 'partial' Gospel that stops at [i]justification[/i]. The challenge is, not to try to correct this problem by presenting a Gospel of salvation by sanctification.

I have a family memnber that tells me he is constantly tormented because every time a bad thought crosses his mind he feels like he is damned again. He says the sinners prayer several times a day. He continuously questions his salvation because he does not believe he measures up. This man is 64 years old and was raised in the strictest holiness environment you can imagine with the least possible assurance. This Oberlin Theology is not just a 'doctrine' to me; it has been my whole life. I have lived long enough to see the unnecessary devistation it causes.

I have counseled the elderly folk who think they are going to hell or have no assurance now that they are crippled and in a nursing home after serving God their whole life and even being Sunday School teachers. I mean, it is literally insane. I had a man tell me today, frustrated, "If I am going to hell over every little sin I commit, why would I even try to serve God. I know I am damned already." I'm no rocket scientist, but I know enough to know I'll never step foot into heaven if it means sinless perfection.

I have done a lot more reflection on Finney's works, trying to get inside his head (if you will). It seems that his whole theology was based on the fear that folk would think they can sin with impunity. As if he felt that folk needed to fear sinning with the fears of hell fire.

Couple that with the fact that he did not believe that a sinner has a sinful nature that needs to be died to. He does not understand John 3:3 as most evangelicals or Ephesians 2. He did not believe in a new creature in the evangelical sense. Everything was based upon personal reforms and repentance under the pressure of the fear of hell. That is the best summary I can come up with for Oberlin Theology; i.e. "love God with all you heart or you are going to hell."

Error begets error. If Sin did not enter the human race and Paul was wrong referring to sinners having the spirit of disobedience in Eph. 2, or the law of Sin working in his members,etc., then Finney is right. If Jesus and Paul are right then there is a regeneration that needs to happen in which Sin is died to in a real sense and the Holy Spirit comes in in place of the Spirit of disobedience. Man is still guilty and still needs to repent; but there are some changes that God makes in a person in a real way that is a divine miracle at regeneration. If any man be in Christ he/she is a NEW creature. Not a rebuilt version of the old. The heart could not be patched up- it needed to be replaced.

A stoney heart does not easily get written on. God wants to write His laws in our hearts and minds. But it takes a new heart. This is God's work as we respond rightly to him. Tablets of stone held what, 10 Commandments? That is because of the 'hardness'. Imagine what God can do with a new heart- a heart spinning soft and pliable on the potters wheel. I once imagined a huge clay pot with the word of God inscribed upon it- line by line and precept by precept. Soft orange clay with the hand of the potter with His writing instrument. This is what I see happening- as another picture in the born again experience.

Now imagine for a moment that there is no real sense of regeneration as we would know it evangelically. The heart is a stone- and it is being treated like soft clay. Louder and more fearsome preaching cannot change the makeup of this stone. God has to do it. So if regeneration is not believed in, it would have to happen in spite of the unbelief. In other words, an Oberlin Evangelist or revivalist would have to be truly regenerated by the Holy Spirit, given a new nature, and dead to Sin (the dynamic) while they simply believe that they never had a sin nature to begin with. Almost as if they were cured and wist not they were even deathly ill. They were cured of a disease they did not believe in.

Can Finney's theology ultimately save a repentent Christian who experiences the shame of having no perfect choice before them?

The answer is squarely [u]no[/u] in real life because I dealt with it again today. Here is a man on oxygen that feels the pains of conscience to get up out of his chair and help his wife around the house (i.e. perhaps, If any man does not work- neither should he eat). But he sits in the chair unable to get up and starts to get aggravated. Trust me, unless a person has been really regenerated and has the Holy Spirit, there is no salvation from Sin in these situations. It will come out. The body is weak and tired and in tremendous pain. But the conscience is tormenting them over and over night and day about what they are [i]not[/i] doing.

In their misery they start to lose their joy. Then they REALLY get worried. Now I don't have joy, and I have been talking mean to my wife. Now I know I'm not saved. So the wife, working day and night for her sick husband, sees him acting out and [i]she[/i] starts to get frustrated. Then she nearly snaps-off and then she starts to question her salvation. Soon neither of them think they are saved and the enemy comes in and starts to torment and fight them. The devil is now having a field day with Finney's hair trigger damnation theology. NO SIN WILL ENTER HEAVEN- NO SIN WILL ENTER HEAVEN-rings in their minds until if left unchecked- their eyes glaze over and they turn to madness. And Oberlin theology fills another caged bed.

What happens when we are awakened from our sinful dreams of self-righteousness and find ourselves drowning in the depts of our own stirring conscience? Sometimes we can't pull ourselves out of the miry clay. Sometimes we just need to be plumb saved.

If multiplied millions of gallons of innocent shed blood under the Levitical system did not convince man of the seriousness of sin- then no amount of crosses would have. If the multiplied plungings of a sharp tool into the throat of a white wool animal filling it with red did not get folks attention- [i]nothing[/i] would have. This is the folly of thinking the Cross was merely making an example out of Christ to show that God is not soft on sin.

The Saducees were the priesthood of the day. They were the ones doing all the killing. And they were the most liberal of the four philosophies in Judaism. They did not believe in angels or the resurrection. Do we really think these men were somehow stunned by the blood and guts of the animals they sacrificed? How soon do we forget that they savored the sight of seeing Christ upon the Cross. It did not effect them at all. Not the lambs and not [u]The[/u] Lamb. Public justice? These people were gruesome. These people would later turn on and kill each other. These people watched as our Lord's back was plowed open like a farmers field and his face was probably distorted beyond what was human. And when they saw this man bludgeoned and battered did they feel sorry for him? did they say; "Wow, God is really serious about sin!" NO!

They reveled in the sight and would have made it worse if they could have. They wanted to see judgment when someone sinned. They never saw a single punishment in my estimation that made them think- "Wow, God is really serious about their sin!" No! They may has well of said that they got what they deserved and went on as if it were a lite thing. Public justice?

What was in the cup in the garden that or Lord ask to be taken away, but drank it because of the Father's will, and His love for the Father and the world, us.

Mark 14:33-36 And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy; And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

Why was He sore amazed? He began to see what was in the cup. The sin of the world, past and future. 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

How does this propitiation become effective?

1Jo 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

1 John 5:11-12 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

The very thing that put the sin in mankind, the first Adam, believing in Satan unto he being our father. The cup prepared the whole world to receive Jesus Christ and be cleansed from sin and have eternal life. The only thing it takes is to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the truth will set you free. Those who don't believe stay in the first Adam and his father, who is Satan. Those who do believe become new creatures in Christ Jesus and His Father God and ours, who believe, "pray in this way" "Our Father" The last Adam's promise.

1 Corinthians 15:43-45 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Now we are the son's of God, a living spirit in Christ Jesus, not just a living soul, but Born Again of Spirit and the water of Life.

1 Corinthians 15:46-47 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Praise God the Father, Jesus Christ drank that cup of sin of the whole world. What Love that took, to be sinless and become all sin for the whole world, to save son's for the Father.

In Christ: Phillip

Were' still here. :-)

Thanks Mike! I was starting to wonder also. ;-)

These issues are so fundamental to Christianity, there is no telling how long it would take to do justice to the issues. I simply cannot imagine a Christianity in which Christ did not die for my sins. If Christ did not die for my sins and I don't really need to be born again, then honestly we were a [u]LOT[/u] better off under the Old Testament. At least under the Old Covenant we only had 613 laws and not the endless concerns of lusting in our heart or having feeling of hatred, etc. to have to contend with. The standard has been raised exceedingly from the OT. In what way would we benefit from a New Covenant if we are to understand it in the Oberlin tradition? If there is no real regeneration that results in a new nature and a new creature and our sins are no more forgiven than they were under the Old Covenant, in what way could the New possibly be better?

Hey guys, just wanted to say I haven't forgotten to post, I've just been too busy to post with school and work. I'm about to leave in 15 minutes for a test (yes, it's a Saturday test (it's an online self-paced class that doesn't meet at regular times)) and then I'll be doing homework all weekend. Bear with me, I'll be post eventually! Next Saturday at the latest (which seems eons away :-P )

Nile

Oh, and I wrote this earlier for a friend, I'll throw it out there real quick:

Penal Substitution must be wrong because it implies, at a bare minimum:
* Limited atonement
* OSAS
* You are saved before you repent, have faith, or confess
* Closed theism
* No real mercy, clearing of a debt - only modern "forgiveness" (sorry I can't explain more)

Diane, you and Robert are doing fine. Please keep dialoguing if you have further to go.

If Christ did not die for my sins and I don't really need to be born again, then honestly we were a LOT better off under the Old Testament. At least under the Old Covenant we only had 613 laws and not the endless concerns of lusting in our heart or having feeling of hatred, etc. to have to contend with

I've been thinking about that too! No wonder the unregenerate have such a strong bent to create their own “Old Covenant” – it is manageable! As you imply, it is hell to live with a guilty conscience that you cannot absolve.

That reminds me of yesterday’s lengthy conversation with my ex-Catholic friend (emphasis, hers). We were talking about the troubling issues of her life. I "heard" all kinds of symptoms of guilt and shame. Finally, I felt the freedom in the Spirit to say: “You are still far too Catholic!” She said, “Ah, yes, that’s it!” It was a wake-up moment for her – and even a relief. She was ready to hear the doctor give the diagnosis, and that’s why she did not get mad at me. By the way, I don’t recommend my words as a formula! It was God’s way of helping HER “get it” – ie, that her conscience was still plagued by accumulated guilt from her adherenace to her past “old” covenant. (She had been unconscience of this)

During that conversation I was busily searching my “forgiveness” verses on e-sword, and would read some to her. It was like new language to her. A God who will forgive! Who releases, sends-away sins forever and ever! Who gives a new start! Wow!

She is getting thirsty.

If there is no real regeneration that results in a new nature and a new creature and our sins are no more forgiven than they were under the Old Covenant...

Then Bunyan’s preaching took on more of an exaltation of Jesus Christ in all his offices, relations and benefits to the word. Then he began to teach ‘the mystery of the union with Christ.”

After that Bunyan had five years of fruitful ministry (before his imprisonment)
taken from They Found the Secret by VR Edman

Surely, Bunyan’s experience was reflected in his writing: ‘The Pilgrim’s Progress”.

Diane

Oh, and I wrote this earlier for a friend, I'll throw it out there real quick:

Penal Substitution must be wrong because it implies, at a bare minimum:
* Limited atonement
* OSAS
* You are saved before you repent, have faith, or confess

Lets look at these first three. These are but a few points of modern Calvinism. Many people that believe in penal substitution reject the notions you suggest. For myself, on the grounds:

1) [i]Atonement[/i] is provided for [i]whosoever[/i] will repent and believe the Gospel. We know that God is not willing that any should perish but that all would come to repentance. When the Jews rejected Christ- Jesus wept over Jerusalem. They were real tears. God is serious about His call to the lost (Jn 3:16, etc.).

2) [i]Eternal Security[/i]. We know from Hebrews 10:39 that backsliding is possible:

But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. The Greek word for draw back is a picture of furling the sail on a ship when going into battle. This, to me, is a metaphor for saying that the individual no longer held their 'sail' up before the direction of the Holy Spirit. They were no longer being energized or directed by the wind of the Holy Spirit. We also have Galatians 5 and other like passages that reveal what sins when practice result in one not inheriting the Kingdom of God. BTW, coffee, Tea, Pepsi and novel reading are in none of those lists. ;-)

3) [i]You are saved before you repent, have faith, or confess.[/i] God initiates contact with man and man is enabled to respond. Perhaps we could call this [i]prevenient grace[/i]. When God 'says', you 'can' and you 'must'. Why? Because no word from God is without the power to accomplish it.

Oberlin atonement seeks to leave an individual perpetually in a state of [u]no[/u] security. This is done so they will always have the fear of sinning before their eyes. It is brought to the point in sermons until people who listened to them week after week no doubt began to despair even of life. And that, because not only did they have to live the sermon on the Mount essentially in the flesh, but they had to abide by a host of personal convictions that he read into the commandments.

The only security Oberlin type believers can ever know is if their conscience is lying down and quieted. It starts out from a false assumption that all Christians believe that they cannot obey God. There is a fear that people believe they can accept Christ 'once' and be eternally secure though they live like devils. This is all false. Some radical Calvinists believe this, but I am sure it is not the main stream.

Finney believed also that a person had the moral ability to obey God in his/her own power. Every command was humanly possible- including Jesus' sermon on the Mount which is exceedingly more strict than anything ever revealed. It was all amatter of man being willing to obey. Since man does not have a sin nature he does not need the miracle of the new birth in the evangelical sense. SO a person is left to live a torqued down version of the sermon on the mount in theirown power and with no assurance. I say NO assurance because Finney believed it was his job to continually distroy peoples assurance to keep them on the point- stirred up and in a revival state. This is how the term "fields burnt over" came about.

He pours all of his own meanings into most soteriological terms. Most of the time he justifies departure from well established historical Christian fundamental doctrines and terms by saying that they are 'impossible' or don't 'make sense'. All of this was designed to prevent sinners from sinning. But God had a completely different plan.

REAL Justification
REAL Regeneration
Spirit empowered Sanctification
Progressive and ultimate Glorification

I've been thinking about that too! No wonder the unregenerate have such a strong bent to create their own “Old Covenant” – it is manageable! As you imply, it is hell to live with a guilty conscience that you cannot absolve.

This is exactly what happened in Rabbinic Judaism. When God is not in the picture- men have a very hard time keeping the commandments. To make sure that the commandments do not get broken, 'fences' were placed around the 613 laws to make sure they would not get broken. You know it as the Talmud.

How did the Jews get there? By rejecting God and trying to live out the commands in their own power. Many Jews also reject the idea of Original Sin. That is very convenient because it negates about half of what Jesus accomplished on the Cross. Then they substituted the sacrificial system (sound familiar yet) with a system of good works known as [i]tzedikah[/i] (acts of righteousness). Why do we need the Messiah to die for our sins? God will have mercy and NOT sacrifice! Where have we heard that before? How convenient!

People perish for a lack of knowledge. The Jews went on to rule out all aspects of the prophetic also. I have shared about this in the past extensively. The bottom line is- they devised a way to have their religion without God. The whole focus is on outward behaviors as expressions of their love to God. We don't do this and we don't do that, etc. Their whole objective was to demonstrate that they did not need the Cross. They could handle it all on their own.

Greetings in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ,

You mentioned that many Jews did not believe in original sin and neither does Charles Finney from what i understand he does not believe in constitutional sinful depravity ?

i posted a question on another forum but it seems that this forum is linked up better with Charles Finney's systematic theology

i have received new evidence from my brother about original sin so i submit it below and re-define my definition of what i thought was "original sin".

Also i wish to submit that this post query is in response to a lecture given by Charles G Finney the first in his series on regeneration. here is the link to the lecture which is found in the systematic theology section given at Oberlin back in the 1840 and 50's

http://www.finneyworks.com/CF04.html

i initially wrote

"recently it was brought to my attention that many believers do not believe in a doctrine known as "original sin"..., "

perhaps i should say many did not and still apparently do not from what i heard from Finney's audio lecture today is that He and neither serious students of the bible like Him believe in total constitutional sinful depravity of man which i believe is aka "original sin" correct me please if i am wrong. he also defines that this has serious implications for what we understand as biblical regeneration aka. salvation, conversion or new birth.

I believe that A.T. Overstreet http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbs07.h
teaches this as well as

those who represent this website
http://www.bible.ca/cal-T-refutation.htm

now to re-define what i understand as "original sin" as presently understood in my own mind

Original Sin: every human is born practically innocent because they are unknowing/unregenerate/weak/untested and immediately are inclined to follow this nature which will naturally speaking pursue and practice prideful rebellion against authority and selfishness which will be evident to all honest inquiry. This natural and inherent condition will for most inevitably who mature to adulthood result in a knowledgeable transgression against God which is punishable by death(of the whole man),The soul that sinneth shall die

An additional scientific evidence given by a brother

man inherits his sinful nature genetically through the physical blood of His first parents and so all men coming from adam have sinned because of inheriting the tainted life blood of Adam..life is in the blood, so in Adam all have sinned

If any brother have any helpful information that is additional or contrary please reply.

Thankful for God's loving children
my brethren

Richard

In the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ,

From what i understand Finneys lecture on Regeneration in no way implies that we have to keep the commandments to be regernerated and so he does not really differ on security either for i recall that he said as long as you remain in your first love so that as long as you are still a christian and have a consciousness for sin and love for Christ you are secure and have assurance.

This is practically the same as any arminian or calvinist standing to know that you are saved ie 1 John and focuses more on willing spiritual growth than any other systematic theology that i know of if one does not grow/sanctify by will/desire then how do they?

so He is consistent before during and after regeneration with the three or more agents in salvation/sanctification/regeneration

God the Holy Spirit/word of God/truth

the man a willing spirit/soul/body

the preacher/tract/book/providential incident

i do not understand why the negative feedback about Charles G Finney when listening to His re-created lecture it seems fair and biblical if not more practical. Moral emphasis is bordering spiritual value so it is in fact very spiritual!

In love with Christ and loving the brethren his children

Richard

Hey guys, just wanted to say I haven't forgotten to post, I've just been too busy to post with school and work.

All the best on your studies this week, Nile! Don’t let us tempt you away from your important educational duties! Meanwhile, we’ll likely be talking lots to you while you are absent.

Robert to Nile:

Many people that believe in penal substitution reject the notions you suggest.

On the other hand, there are those who not believe in penal substitution, but may also view your four-point list in different ways. (like me, though, I suspect that you have some good points too - I wouldn't mind discussing later)

Nile, I’m saying that you made a semi-convert out of me. At this point I can’t seem to find any New Covenant teachings on penal substitution, so have chosen to set it aside.
---------------------------

… but not the topic…. Just when I thought I was finished - at least for the weekend, I accidentally “bumped” into yet another verse:

“… [Jesus] too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death – that is, the devil – and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.” Heb. 2:14,15

Voilà! There it is again! Christ’s died to rescue us from the devil! My attention is grabbed by the words: “and free those held in slavery by their fear of death”.

Interestingly, according to the secular book, “The Gift of Fear” by Gavin de Becker the number one fear of humanity is the fear of death. (the second being the fear of public speaking = potential death of dignity) Of course, that comment about death takes us straight to Roman 5.

“ …. Death reigned from the time of Adam…. For if the many DIED by the trespass of one man…. For by the trespasses of one man, DEATH reigned through all men….. sin reigned in death” Rom. 5:14,15,21

Now backtrack to the Garden, and we see death in the list of outcomes of the curse: “from dust to dust” Gen. 3:19

See here! It is death – the curse of the devil, ruler of the air, and ruler of the unredeemed (Eph. 1:2). Because we inherit the curse from Adam, we all sin – slaves to sin. Christ, by freeing us from the curse, takes out the stinger. And so we sing:

“Where O death is your sting.” 1 Cor. 15:55 (taken from Is. 25:8)

"Neither death nor life... will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus." Rom. 8:38

Diane

Hi Richard,

man inherits his sinful nature genetically through the physical blood of His first parents and so all men coming from adam have sinned because of inheriting the tainted life blood of Adam..life is in the blood, so in Adam all have sinned

You may want to do some searches of the forums on the subject of the flesh, constitutional sin, and original sin. We have discussed these issues at great length in the past and you would probably enjoy reading through it as there are good answers to some of your questions.

From what i understand Finneys lecture on Regeneration in no way implies that we have to keep the commandments to be regernerated and so he does not really differ on security either for i recall that he said as long as you remain in your first love so that as long as you are still a christian and have a consciousness for sin and love for Christ you are secure and have assurance.

I found an interesting quote of Finney's that seems to indicate that he believed that all our hope must be in Christ alone:

Pride of Heart C.G. Finney (1848)

[i]When sinners have the conceit that they are really as good as Christians, because their conduct is as fair externally, they overlook the fact that moral character belongs to the intention. They differ entirely from Christians, as appears from their opposite motives, and from the fact that one is impenitent and the other penitent. They also differ fundamentally in their dependence for salvation. The Christian trusts in Christ alone; the sinner not in Christ but in some form of self-righteousness. It always is and must be essential to the state of an unbelieving sinner, that he does not submit himself to the righteousness of Christ, but goes about to establish some form of righteousness of his own. Go, visit and compare the death-bed experience of the impenitent moralist, and of the Christian. Their lives may have been externally not greatly unlike, for both have sinned, and both have done many things externally proper and right. But try them on their death-beds. Visit the sinner. "You seem to be very sick." "Yes, I am." "Do you expect to recover?" "O, I don't know. I am very sick." "Are you willing to die?" "I can hardly say I am; yet if God thinks it best I suppose I must submit. I believe God is just; He will do me no injustice." "What do you think of your past life?" "O, I have always meant to be an honest man. I have not been as bad a man as many have supposed. I can't bear to think that God will send me to hell, for He knows that I have done about as well as I could."

You see, my hearer, that this man has been pretty good, pretty good in everything, and he looks to God's justice, not to his mercy, as his ground of hope. His own righteousness is his ultimate ground of reliance.

But let us go into another sick-chamber. Here lies a Christian, near his end. "How do you do, brother? You seem to be very low; do you expect to recover?" "No, not at all." "Well, you have been a very good man." (Mark, he turns his face away ashamed and troubled.) "I have no goodness at all to speak of before God or man. There is no ground for me to hope in that direction. If God were to lay righteousness to the line, I could not stand a moment before Him. If however I may be made the representative of Christ's righteousness, I may be saved. All my hope is in Christ. I never look elsewhere than to Him alone. I am a great sinner and deserve the deepest hell." "What, sir, have you been a hypocrite?" "O, no sir, but before I was converted, and often since, I have greatly dishonored God, and have utterly forfeited all claim to salvation on the ground of my own merits." "Well, brother, are you afraid to die?" "No, not in the least; I see no reason to fear. I believe that Jesus is able to save to the uttermost, and I have cast my naked soul on Him alone."

Now you can not but notice the great contrast between these two men whose dying experience we have just been contemplating. The moralist passes into an atmosphere of clouds and darkness. Despite of all his delusions and of all the false quiet they can give him, his soul is full of trouble and can find no rest.[/i]

The confusion comes in when you then read:

UNITY OF MORAL ACTION (C. G.Finney)

Objection: Does a Christian cease to be a Christian, whenever he commits a sin? I answer:

[i]1. Whenever he sins, he must, for the time being, cease to be holy. This is self-evident. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned; he must incur the penalty of the law of God. If he does not, it must be because the law of God is abrogated. But if the law of God be abrogated, he has no rule of duty; consequently, he can neither be holy nor sinful. If it be said that the precept is still binding upon him, but that, with respect to the Christian, the penalty is forever set aside, or abrogated, I reply, that to abrogate the penalty is to repeal the precept; for a precept without penalty is no law. It is only counsel or advice. [u]The Christian, therefore, is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys; or Antinomianism is true. Until he repents, he cannot be forgiven. In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground.[/u]

2. In two important respects the sinning Christian differs widely from the unconverted sinner:

(1.) In his relations to God. A Christian is a child of God. A sinning Christian is a disobedient child of God. An unconverted sinner is a child of the devil. A Christian sustains a covenant relation to God; such a covenant relation as to secure to him that discipline which tends to reclaim and bring him back, if he wanders away from God. "If his children forsake My law, and walk not in My judgments; if they break My statutes and keep not My commandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless My loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer My faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of My lips" (Psalms 89:30-34).

(2.) The sinning Christian differs from the unconverted man, in the state of his sensibility. In whatever way it takes place, every Christian knows that the state of his sensibility in respect to the things of God, has undergone a great change. Now it is true, that moral character does not lie in the sensibility, nor in the will's obeying the sensibility. Nevertheless our consciousness teaches us, that our feelings have great power in promoting wrong choice on the one hand, and in removing obstacles to right choice on the other. In every Christian's mind there is, therefore, a foundation laid for appeals to the sensibilities of the soul, that gives truth a decided advantage over the will. And multitudes of things in the experience of every Christian, give truth a more decided advantage over his will, through the intelligence, than is the case with unconverted sinners.[/i]

The interesting presumption is that folk are going to die from a death bed witha time of reflection. Many will not have such a priveledge. What about those who are snapped out into eternity having sinned and is now on the same legal grounds with God as a sinner?

Nile, I’m saying that you made a semi-convert out of me. At this point I can’t seem to find any New Covenant teachings on penal substitution, so have chosen to set it aside.

:-o

I sure thought this thread was loaded with them.

The word "substitution" is not to be found in either the New or Old Testament because it is a theological term given as a [i]convenient summary[/i] of multiplepassages of scripture in both testaments. The word Trinity is not found in the scriptures also. Why? Because it is a theological term used to express God as being in three persons. Just because the term Trinity is not found in scripture does not mean the truth is not.

Substitution is revealed in the Old Covenant first with the skins that God brought to Adam and Eve. There is no doubt in my mind that this is when God gave the revelation of animal sacrifice as a substitution for their own deaths. This was true of Passover also. When God saw the blood he passed over. Not the peoples blood- but the blood of a [i]substitute[/i].

And he shall put [u]his[/u] hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and [u]it[/u] shall be accepted [u]FOR him[/u] to make atonement [u]FOR him[/u]. (Lev. 1:4 KJV)

He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted FOR him to make atonement [u]on his behalf[/u]. (Leviticus 1:4 NASB)

This is CLEARLY substitution.

And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.(Lev 7:18 NASB)

We also in the New Testament find statements such as, "instead of" and "FOR". This is some of the scriptural language of the theological term substitution.

Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom [u]FOR[/u] many.(Matt 20:28, Mark 10:45)

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life [u]FOR[/u] his friends. (John 15:13)

Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life [u]FOR[/u] us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. (I John 3:16)

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse [u]FOR[/u] us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:(Galatians 3:13)

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died [u]FOR our sins[/u] according to the scriptures; (I Cor 15:3)

For he hath made him to be sin [u]FOR[/u] us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (II Cor. 5:21)

And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself [u]FOR[/u] us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. (Ephesians 5:2)

See also: Galatians 1:4; 1 Timothy 2:6,14; Hebrews 7:27; 5:1,3; 10:12; Romans 5:6,7,8; 1 Corinthians 1:13; 5:7; 11:24; I Peter 3:18; 4:1.

Other related passages include: Galatians 2:20; Romans 14:15; II Corinthians 5:15. Compare also Romans 16:4; Isa 53:1-45.

So when we speak of penal substitution we are using a theological term to describe the truth conveyed in this vast host of passages.

It is important to stop a moment and identify the source of great challenge that the Church has faced since AD 70 that continues to confound many to this day. When Titus arrived in Jerusalem and the Temple Mount was destroyed in around 70 AD, the [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=1977]Church Began To Head West.[/url] It moved away from the Holy Land and began to try to understand it's own truths within the framework of the cultures that the Gospel was taken to. This happened to a degree in Romans as Paul used the law court background to explain the doctrine of justification. But later on, as the Church left it's Old Testament or as some have called it their "Jewish Roots" all manor of chaos and heresy began to develop that eventually led to what is known historically as [i]The Age of the Apologists.[/i]

The [i]vicarious suffering of Christ[/i] was understood since the 1st century and can be traced up to our present time as the doctrine has been scientifically developed. You must understand that scientific examination of the scripture and development of theology often comes as the result of some heresy invading the Church. Certain truths are just accepted to be so and are not explored until someone comes along with a false teaching.

The problem is, by the time the atonement was really being examined and developed with its various doctrines, the Church had already suffered some blows that in the minds of some discounted the value of the Old Testament. In many cases the Jews were hated and the Church was trying to distance Herself from the Jews. The more this happened the more subjective the understanding of the atonement became. Factor in to this also the influence of gnosticism, asceticism, monasticism and neo-platonism and you have a recipe for serious error.

Paul came preaching to Corinth knowing nothing save Jesus Christ and Him crucified (I Cor.2:2). This was the central core of Paul's doctrine. Undoubtedly it was Paul's influence that led to the writing of the Book of Hebrews. He had likely pressed these truths into the hearts of the people to such an extent that they he took for granted that they understood these things.

And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, [u]ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God;[/u] and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil (Heb.5)

The teachings concerning the revelation of the Levitical system as it related to Christ should have been elementary to the people. It was what Paul came preaching as his central doctrine (I Cor.1:23). You will notice that in Hebrews the text is referred to as "milk" and not strong meat. Indeed, the writer says that they had need to be taught again the first rincipals of the doctrine of Christ. This fact alone ought to weigh heavily in on our understanding of what the early Church had a doctrinal grasp of in the first century.

Moreover before the destruction of the Temple the Jews understood full well most of the concepts concerning priesthood. It was part of their daily life. This is the context in which Hebrews and the New Testament is to be understood. And this is why men like Socinus, Grotius, and others were confused. It is evident that Finney was preoccupied with 'public justice'. But there is no concept such of this in scripture that I can find. The Romans made a public spectical of political criminals to drive home a point- this was not God's method. Jesus died as a political Galilean trouble maker not much different than Judas of Galilee as far as the Romans were concerned. Crosses were used to make an exampleout of folk. But the Cross was God-wards. Christ is the propitiation for our sins. This was the fulfillment of the Levitical system and the establishment of a priesthood after the order of Melchezidek.

Ok, I'm 3.5 pages behind...

Diane:

Am I hearing that as long as you can’t be BLAMED, you are off the hook? (Didn't Adam and Eve try that?)

Frankly, I beleive that Finney's “accountably” theology is flawed – the result of running with a few verses too far and layering them on some faulty presuppositions! It lets some off the hook and condemns others – for the SAME SIN.

Who decides what sin is “on purpose”: ex: We all “know” that the criminal kills on purpose, but the hypochondriac can’t help his afflictions.

Here’s my thinking: If our theology doesn’t work in the school of real life, and only in ideology class, it just may be flawed. Time to go back to the Word.

Can you give an example of someone who does something which they believe to be right, based on every revelation God has given them, and yet still sins?

Oh, and also, what did the OT sacrifices actually symbolize: the taking away of sin – ie cleansing, washing, destroying, or the taking away the legal charge? Or maybe both. I need to find some verses on that too, really. In other words, is forgiveness based on the washing away of sins – ie our old nature, in Christ, or the fact that the debt is paid.

Nile, I’m saying that you made a semi-convert out of me. At this point I can’t seem to find any New Covenant teachings on penal substitution, so have chosen to set it aside.

… but not the topic…. Just when I thought I was finished - at least for the weekend, I accidentally “bumped” into yet another verse:

Compton:

And I'm sure Nile knows how much we appreciate each others's opinions around here. I've sensed the same mutual respect from him throughout this conversation.

Oh looky here...I'm segwaying into one of my questions for Nile.

The scenario:

1) Two businessmen own a medium sized distributor of beer and tobacco products that is distressed financially with weak cashflow and a terrible debt/equity ratio. Yet, praise God, this financial crisis leads one the men to seek God and become a believer in Christ. This young believer is immediately convicted over the product line of his business and wants to find a line of work more fitting to the light he has been given. However, he is also currently in excessive debt to two banks and has his partner to consider, as well as employees.

All the while this man is living this delimna, he is attending church, studying the word, and growing in painful awareness of the wrongness of his business. To navigate the choppy waters of his awakened concience, he will need the grace of the Lord. Is there such grace in Finney's theology? This young Christian ackowledges that he can do no perfect thing, and cries out to God to open a door of esacpe. But untill the answer comes, there will have to be patience and faith in the suffiency of the grace of his savior.

Ok, heres my take on this, I'll say it straight up: I think the man need not go against his conscience.

Here are some possible things the man might do:

1. The man considers and decides that paying off the debt is more important than stopping selling beer. He continues in the beer buisness to pay off the debt. While he is [i]grieved at his circumstances[/i], he does not feel guilty about selling beer. He is taking the best possible course of action, has pure motives, and is loving God and loving others to the best of his ability. Who would charge such a man with doing wrong? I surely wouldn't. And I know God wont' hold such a man accountable for selling beer.
2. Vice versa. The man decides that stopping selling beer is more important than paying off the debt. Same as the last option in all other respects.
3. The man decides that stopping selling beer is most important, but instead decides to continue to sell beer in order to pay off his debt. In this case, the man is not converted. He lives opposite of his conscience, which a mirror of the will of God that has been revealed to him.
4. point 3 vice versa.

2) A young Christian couple with two young children are full of zeal for the Lord, and make a habit of giving quite generously to their local church, and needy people in the community. One day many years later the couple meets with a Christian financial counselor who is shocked to learn how much money they have gifted over the years while neglecting their savings. The advisor scolds them for being irresponsible not only to themselves but also to their children. For the first time the earnest couple becomes conflicted and feels guilty about the very behavior that they were sure was righteous. Now they just felt foolishly religous.

Soon, in consideration of their children, they stop giving so much and begin to address the neglect they feel guilty of towards their children. This choice leads to more guilt at the church which is reinforced by phone calls from church leadership. In the end they stopp attending their local church in order to avoid the pressure to give. This violates their conscience. Because they recieved no understanding from their church leadership, they become resentful towards churches in general. This too violates their conscience, but they do not know how to re-enter church life without feeling like they are failing to give enough money.

Wow, what a wretched scenario!!!

For the first time the earnest couple becomes conflicted and feels guilty about the very behavior that they were sure was righteous. Now they just felt foolishly religous.

The same with this example. If the couple gave money out of a desire to show love, they can not be to blame. Foolish maybe, yes, but I do not think unrighteous. Wisdom is wisdom, and not everyone has it (although they could). Not having wisdom is not a sin, although having wisdom will keep you from much sin.

Soon, in consideration of their children, they stop giving so much and begin to address the neglect they feel guilty of towards their children. This choice leads to more guilt at the church which is reinforced by phone calls from church leadership.

In the end they stopp attending their local church in order to avoid the pressure to give. This violates their conscience.

Because they recieved no understanding from their church leadership, they become resentful towards churches in general. This too violates their conscience, but they do not know how to re-enter church life without feeling like they are failing to give enough money.

Will Finney's theology allow the people in these examples to remain saved?

Can Finney's theology ultimately save a repentent Christian who experiences the shame of having no perfect choice before them?

I have a fundamentally different understanding of things than how you present it. I do not believe a situation exists where there is not one or more right choices.

Check this out...

The right choice in any situation is to choose the best choice.
The best choice is implied to be the best choice of the possible choices.
Possible choices exist in all situations.
Therefore, there is a right choice in every situation.

Yep, that's a product of my advanced schooling for ya ;-)

What happens when we are awakened from our sinful dreams of self-righteousness and find ourselves drowning in the depts of our own stirring conscience?

Thanks a ton for taking up my challange Compton. I hope I dealt with your response fairly.

Here is a similar challenge:
[b]Can you give an example of someone who does something which they believe to be right, based on every revelation God has given them, and yet still sins?[/b]

Robert:

Paul believed he was doing God's will by persecuting and killing Christians. And yet what did he say?

Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, "Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day." (Acts 23:1 NASB)

The greatest penalty for sin was leveled in the beginning- separation from God. This is what Hell is. The worst part about hell is not the flames- it is the absence of God.

Where Finney went wrong was that he tried to make the atonement and imputed righteousness make sense to American lawyers.

I had a man tell me today, frustrated, "If I am going to hell over every little sin I commit, why would I even try to serve God. I know I am damned already."

1 John 5:3-4
[i]For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. For whatever is born of God overcomes the world.[/i]

Matthew 11:28-30
[i]Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.[/i]

I'm no rocket scientist, but I know enough to know I'll never step foot into heaven if it means sinless perfection.

That is the best summary I can come up with for Oberlin Theology; i.e. "love God with all you heart or you are going to hell."

Now imagine for a moment that there is no real sense of regeneration as we would know it evangelically.

The answer is squarely no in real life because I dealt with it again today. Here is a man on oxygen that feels the pains of conscience to get up out of his chair and help his wife around the house (i.e. perhaps, If any man does not work- neither should he eat). But he sits in the chair unable to get up and starts to get aggravated. Trust me, unless a person has been really regenerated and has the Holy Spirit, there is no salvation from Sin in these situations. It will come out. The body is weak and tired and in tremendous pain. But the conscience is tormenting them over and over night and day about what they are not doing.

In their misery they start to lose their joy. Then they REALLY get worried. Now I don't have joy, and I have been talking mean to my wife. Now I know I'm not saved. So the wife, working day and night for her sick husband, sees him acting out and she starts to get frustrated. Then she nearly snaps-off and then she starts to question her salvation. Soon neither of them think they are saved and the enemy comes in and starts to torment and fight them. The devil is now having a field day with Finney's hair trigger damnation theology. NO SIN WILL ENTER HEAVEN- NO SIN WILL ENTER HEAVEN-rings in their minds until if left unchecked- their eyes glaze over and they turn to madness. And Oberlin theology fills another caged bed.

Lets all remember that truth is not based on life experience. Remember Noah: No one was righteous but him and his family. If you had gone by life experience then, you'd have said it was impossible to do the right thing and please God, because, as far as you knew, no one did.

Robert, a continuing theme I keep picking up on is this idea of "small sins".
I will repeat and repeat again: there are no small sins!
Sin is ceasing to love God and love others. It is hating the Light and loving the Dark. It is turning on God and rebelling against Him. It is pleasing yourself and not God. It is spitting in Gods face and saying, "I don't care about you!"
People who do those things deserve hell, and that's where they'll go.

At least under the Old Covenant we only had 613 laws and not the endless concerns of lusting in our heart or having feeling of hatred, etc. to have to contend with.

The standard has been raised exceedingly from the OT.

Substitution is revealed in the Old Covenant first with the skins that God brought to Adam and Eve. There is no doubt in my mind that this is when God gave the revelation of animal sacrifice as a substitution for their own deaths. This was true of Passover also. When God saw the blood he passed over. Not the peoples blood- but the blood of a substitute.

And now for an offensive thrust 8-)

---

[b]Matthew 18:21-35[/b]
[i]21 Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23 Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 27 Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
28 “But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 30 And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.
35 So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses."[/i]

1. vs 27: [b]"forgave him the debt"[/b] The master did not require that someone else pay the debt. He simply forgave the debt out of the compassion and mercy of his heart. The true meaning of forgiveness has been lost in our modern day and age. Forgiveness is not simply releasing feelings of resentment, anger, or disgruntledness toward an offender - such feelings should not even be there to begin with. Biblical forgiveness is more in line with the word mercy. It is a releasing of the offender from the offense. It is ceasing to demand retribution for a crime committed.
2. vs 32: [b]"because you begged me"[/b] It was not until the servant begged that he was forgiven.
3. vs: 34: [b]"until he should pay all that was due to him"[/b] The servant once forgiven is no forgiven no longer. What is the result? He must pay the debt which he was previously forgiven of. If the debt had been paid at the forgiveness, then what is the servant paying off at the end? Unless his debt was not paid off, but remitted, canceled, forgiven.
4. vs 33: [b]"Should you not also"[/b] We are to forgive in the same manner God forgives us. Now we know that when we forgive, we truly release the offender from the sin and require no punishment be dealt. God forgives likewise.
5. vs 23: [b]"Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like"[/b] And so we have a picture of how God forgives those who plead Him, realesing them from their debt.

---

[b]Luke 17:3-4[/b]
[i]3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. 4 And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.[/i]

1. [b]"if he repents[/b] Startling as it may sound, Christians should not forgive everyone who sins against them. All should be rebuked, but only those who repent should be forgiven.
2. [b]"seven times in a day returns to you"[/b] The manner in which sin is presenting here is stark. For each and every sin the offender must return and announce, "I repent." It is not until then that they are forgiven.
3. [b]"seven times...you shall forgive him"[/b] We see that forgiveness is conditional and repetitive. One encompassing pardon will not suffice. Seven sins require seven pardons.
4. Now, considering that the manner in which we ought to forgive is the same in which God forgives (see last text), we can apply points 1, 2, and 3 to God and man:
a. God does not forgive all men, but only those who repent of sin.
b. Men must return to God and ask forgiveness for each sin they commit. It is not until they repent that they are forgiven.
c. God will forgive men as many times as they return to Him. However, each repentance is necessary for forgiveness - an all-encompassing pardon will not granted.

---

Lastly, this is slightly off-topic, but I wanted to post a link to this most amazing book:
[url=http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbsindex.htm]Are Men Born Sinners?[/url]

At least check out this chapter:
[url=http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbs05.htm]Objections Answered[/url]

---

And tha tha th tha, that's all folks!!!

Big hugs goodnight to everyone,
Nile

Paul was talking about his life since he became a Christian. Clearly he didn't mean he lived with a perfectly good conscience all his life - he talks about being condemned by his in conscience in Romans 7 and...another part in Romans, can't remember where.

Paul's testimony is to the effect that he did in fact live in all good conscience all of his life.

Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; [u]touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.[/u]

Here is a man that was more exceedingly zealous for the traditions than even his fathers. He, no doubt, could recite the first 5 books of the bible from memory. He could also prove a false doctrine from scripture. his lineage was more pure even than David's and subsequently our Lord's. But the most sobering thing he says is... [i]touching the righteousness which is in the law, [u]blameless[/u].[/i]. There was simply nothing ever on his conscience. This is why the Gospel likely did not make sense to him at first. WHY do I need someone to die for my sins? I am blameless! Are you calling me a sinner! Well, welcome to this stoning then! And he tortured Christians compelling them to blaspheme. All of which he did believing he was pleasing God.

But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, [u]And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:[/u] That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. (Philippians 3)

This is [i]imputed righteousnes[/i], clearly. The basis on which Paul sought to be accepted with God was not his blameless record. It was not his blue-blood status (as some have called it). He counted it all as dung! Why? Finney says we must have our own righteousness and rejects both imputed sin and imputed righteousness. But if Paul cast off his own righteousness- whose will he stand in? [i]but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith...[/i].

Ok, I just gotta stop and question you here. Who ever came up with that doctrine? God is surely in Hell. It's not His absense which makes it bad - it's His presence that makes it bad. Who do you think inflicts torment in Hell? It sure ain't the devil.

The point I am making is that God as we know Him in peaceful fellowship as Adam knew Him. Sure God is omnipresent. But sinners are not full of God. They have no fellowship with God though he be not far from them (Acts 17:27). David suggested if he made his bed in hell God would be there. But I am referring to the wonderful presence of God as He manifested Himself to his people. I am referring to God as David cried out in Psalm 51 for God's Holy Spirit not to be taken from him. David was not saying there would be a vaccum of God's omniscient presence everywhere his body went. He was talking about a cutting off of fellowship. THIS, in my estimation, is what would make hell- Hell.

As for the place prepared for the Devil and His angels? As for Him whose fan is in His hand and He shall thoroughly purge His floor? The one that will gather His wheat into the garner but will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire?

Ye shall conceive chaff, ye shall bring forth stubble: your breath, as fire, shall devour you. And the people shall be as the burnings of lime: as thorns cut up shall they be burned in the fire. Hear, ye that are far off, what I have done; and, ye that are near, acknowledge my might. The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. [u]Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil;[/u]. He shall dwell on high: his place of defence shall be the munitions of rocks: bread shall be given him; his waters shall be sure. (Isaiah 33)

Chaff put to the flames makes a tremendous firey display. It is one of the most explosive substances around.This is why men working in grain elevators in Kansas and other wheat producing places use rubber tipped shovels and tools. One SPARK and BOOM!

Finney sought to understand the Atonement in light of natural revelation, i.e. our God given sense of justice.

The only way we can understand the Book is to follow the story line from Genesis to Revelation. God revealed the meaning and purpose of atonement in great detail. To extrapolate the doctrine from its story line is to totally lose touch with it's meaning.

Robert, how do you respond to these verses which I have mentioned previously:

The only way anyone really can; by walking in the Spirit. This is a life lived [i]not[/i] under the law- but in the Spirit. Having begun in the Spirit can I now be perfected by the flesh? Can I add to myself a list of touch not taste not and handle not that will get me where only being changed into the image of Christ from glory to glory will get me? Rules won't take a person where I am referring to. BUT, if we walk in the Spirit we will live out by nature the commandments. For it is God that worketh in you both to [i]will[/i] and to [i]do[/i] His good pleasure. The teachings of Christ were to demonstrate how short of the glory of God man is apart from the born again experience (John 3:3). But the new creature, baptized into Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit, dead to the law of Sin and raised in power- can walk in the Spirit and [i]establish[/i] rather than make void the law.

Something I'm curious of...do you love God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind?

That depends on who you ask. If you ask a preacher during revival trying to break me down- he may well find some area, uncover some nakedness that I am unaware of. He may well show me that I do not really love God for this, that, or the other reason. He may lift up my shortcomings before me as to pour something upon my conscience and trouble it. But as it stands this morning- my conscience is clear and I have not the Holy Spirit dealing with me that I do not love God. So, in short the answer is yes- as best as I know. But if I gave my body to be burned for His I would not trust in that. There was an ancient heresy drawn up when martyrdom was prevelant that somehow martyrdom added somewhat to what Christ did on the cross (See Origen's works). I may be in ministry 6 days a week. I may eat , sleep, and breath God and His work. But I count it all as dung that I may win Christ. I dare not trust in my love for God as a reason to be in right standing with God.

In my opinion, evangelical regeneration is hokey and unbiblical.

:-o

In my opinion, evangelical regeneration is hokey and unbiblical. Regeneration=conversion=born again=new heart. Being born again is a complete change of your heart, it is a radical shifting of the focus of your life. It is ceasing from sin and starting to live unto God. It is a big thing - the biggest thing that will happen in your life!
This conversion is brought about both by the sinner, who wills and seeks and chooses, and by God, who convicts of sin, exposes error, and guides into truth. This is what I see as the Biblical definition of regeneration=conversion=born again=new heart.

This was Finney's view also. However, the work that God does in regeneration is far and beyond what many believers think. True New Testament Christianity is found in the book of Acts.

Robert, I'm starting to see that the reason you are so opposed to Oberlin Theology is because you've had experiences like this.

The man I am speaking of here was radically changed by the power of God. Fear never moved this man- as he was one of the most hardened sinners I ever heard of. He is troubled by teachings that don't square with the Bible and a Devil that takes full advantage of them.

Robert, a continuing theme I keep picking up on is this idea of "small sins".

All sins are not created equal. the finality of Oberlin theology- when drawn to it's final conclusion is just as you say.

I will repeat and repeat again: there are no small sins!
Sin is ceasing to love God and love others. It is hating the Light and loving the Dark. It is turning on God and rebelling against Him. It is pleasing yourself and not God. It is spitting in Gods face and saying, "I don't care about you!"
People who do those things deserve hell, and that's where they'll go.

When someone shows you what they believe- BELIEVE THEM.

Christ died in our place; He died so that we don't have to. But Christ did not have to suffer the punishment that we deserved.

He was wounded FOR our transgressions. He was bruised FOR our iniquities. The CHASTISEMENT of our peace was upon Him. (Isaiah 53) That is all I need to know to settle it for me. It was MY sin that Christ died for.

Paul's testimony is to the effect that he did in fact live in all good conscience all of his life.

Those aren't the words of a man living with a pure conscience. Paul was blameless externally, but in his heart before God. That is why he says: "For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”" Covetousness is not visible from the outside.

This is imputed righteousnes, clearly. The basis on which Paul sought to be accepted with God was not his blameless record. It was not his blue-blood status (as some have called it). He counted it all as dung! Why? Finney says we must have our own righteousness and rejects both imputed sin and imputed righteousness. But if Paul cast off his own righteousness- whose will he stand in? but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith....

And be found in him - That is, united to him by a living faith. The idea is, that when the investigations of the great day should take place in regard to the ground of salvation, it might be found that he was united to the Redeemer and depended solely on his merits for salvation; compare the notes at John 6:56.

Not having mine own righteousness - That is, not relying on that for salvation. This was now the great aim of Paul, that it might be found at last that he was not trusting to his own merits, but to those of the Lord Jesus.

Which is of the law - see the notes at Romans 10:3. The "righteousness which is of the law" is that which could be obtained by conformity to the precepts of the Jewish religion, such as Paul had endeavored to obtain before he became a Christian. He now saw that no one complied perfectly with the holy law of God, and that all dependence on such a righteousness was vain. All people by nature seek salvation by the law. They set up some standard which they mean to comply with, and expect to be saved by conformity to that. With some it is the law of honor, with others the law of honesty, with others the law of kindness and courtesy, and with others the law of God. If they comply with the requirements of these laws, they suppose that they will be safe, and it is only the grace of God showing them how defective their standard is, or how far they come from complying with its demands, that can ever bring them from this dangerous dependence. Paul in early life depended on his compliance with the laws of God as he understood them, and supposed that he was safe. When he was brought to realize his true condition, he saw how far short he had come of what the law of God required, and that all dependence on his own works was vain.

But that which is through the faith of Christ - That justification which is obtained by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ; see at Romans 1:17, note; Romans 3:24, note; Romans 4:5, note.

Righteousness which is of God by faith - Which proceeds from God, or of which he is the great source and fountain. This may include the following things:

(1) God is the author of pardon - and this is a part of the righteousness which the man who is justified has.

(2) God purposes to treat the justified sinner as if he had not sinned - and thus his righteousness is of God.

(3) God is the source of all the grace that will be imparted to the soul, making it really holy. In this way, all the righteousness which the Christian has is "of God." The idea of Paul is, that he now saw that it was far more desirable to be saved by righteousness obtained from God than by his own. That obtained from God was perfect, and glorious, and sufficient; that which he had attempted to work out was defective, impure, and wholly insufficient to save the soul. It is far more honorable to be saved by God than to save ourselves; it is more glorious to depend on him than to depend on anything that we can do.

---

I would also like to posts Barnes Most Excellent Commentary on Romans 4:3. He arguing directly against penal substitution and "imputed righteousness".

[b]For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[/b]

For what saith the Scripture? - The inspired account of Abraham' s justification. This account was final, and was to settle the question. This account is found in Genesis 15:6.

Abraham believed God - In the Hebrew, "Abraham believed Yahweh." The sense is substantially the same, as the argument turns on the act of believing. The faith which Abraham exercised was, that his posterity should be like the stars of heaven in number. This promise was made to him when he had no child, and of course when he had no prospect of such a posterity. See the strength and nature of this faith further illustrated in Romans 4:16-21. The reason why it was counted to him for righteousness was, that it was such a strong, direct, and unwavering act of confidence in the promise of God.

And it - The word "it" here evidently refers to the act of believing It does not refer to the righteousness of another - of God, or of the Messiah; but the discussion is solely of the strong act of Abraham' s faith. which in some sense was counted to him for righteousness. In what sense this was, is explained directly after. All that is material to remark here is, that the act of Abraham, the strong confidence of his mind in the promises of God, his unwavering assurance that what God had promised he would perform, was reckoned for righteousness. The same thing is more fully expressed in Romans 4:18-22. When therefore it is said that the righteousness of Christ is accounted or imputed to us; when it is said that his merits are transferred and reckoned as ours; whatever may be the truth of the doctrine, it cannot be defended by "this" passage of Scripture.

Faith is uniformly an act of the mind. It is not a created essence which is placed within the mind. It is not a substance created independently of the soul, and placed within it by almighty power. It is not a principle, for the expression a principle of faith, is as unmeaningful as a principle of joy, or a principle of sorrow, or a principle of remorse. God promises; the man believes; and this is the whole of it.

(A principle is the "element or original cause," out of which certain consequences arise, and to which they may be traced. And if faith be the root of all acceptable obedience, then certainly, in this sense, it is a principle. But whatever faith be, it is not here asserted that it is imputed for, or instead of, righteousness. See the note above.)

While the word "faith" is sometimes used to denote religious doctrine, or the system that is to be believed (Acts 6:7; Acts 15:9; Romans 1:5; Romans 10:8; Romans 16:26; Ephesians 3:17; Ephesians 4:5; I Timothy 2:7, etc.); yet, when it is used to denote that which is required of people, it always denotes an acting of the mind exercised in relation to some object, or some promise, or threatening, or declaration of some other being; see the note at Mark 16:16.

Was counted - ̓́ elogigisthē . The same word in Romans 4:22, is is rendered "it was imputed." The word occurs frequently in the Scriptures. In the Old Testament, the verb ׁ chaashab , which which is translated by the word ́ logizomai , means literally, "to think, to intend," or "purpose; to imagine, invent," or "devise; to reckon," or "account; to esteem; to impute," that is, to impute to a man what belongs to himself, or what "ought" to be imputed to him. It occurs only in the following places: Psalms 32:2; Psalms 35:4; Isaiah 10:7; Job 19:11; Job 33:10; Genesis 16:6; Genesis 38:15; I Samuel 1:13; Psalms 52:4; Jeremiah 18:18; Zechariah 7:10; Job 6:26; Job 19:16; Isaiah 13:17; I Kings 10:21; Numbers 18:27, Numbers 18:30; Psalms 88:4; Isaiah 40:17; Lamentations 4:2; Isaiah 40:15; Genesis 31:16. I have examined all the passages, and as the result of my examination have come to the conclusion, that there is not one in which the word is used in the sense of reckoning or imputing to a man what does not strictly belong to him; or of charging on him what ought not to be charged on him as a matter of personal right. The word is never used to denote imputing in the sense of transferring, or of charging that on one which does not properly belong to him. The same is the case in the New Testament. The word occurs about forty times (see "Schmidius' Concord)," and, in a similar signification. No doctrine of transferring, or of setting over to a man what does not properly belong to him, be it sin or holiness, can be derived, therefore, from this word. Whatever is meant by it here, it evidently is declared that the act of believing is what is intended, both by Moses and by Paul.

For righteousness - In order to justification; or to regard and treat him in connection with this as a righteous man; as one who was admitted to the favor and friendship of God. In reference to this we may remark,

(1) That it is evidently not intended that the act of believing, on the part of Abraham, was the meritorious ground of acceptance; for then it would have been a work. Faith was as much his own act, as any act of obedience to the Law.

(2) The design of the apostle was to show that by the Law, or by works, man could not be justified; Romans 3:28; Romans 4:2.

(3) Faith was not what the Law required. It demanded complete and perfect obedience; and if a man was justified by faith, it was in some other way than by the Law.

(4) As the Law did not demand this; and as faith was something different from the demand of the Law; so if a man were justified by that, it was on a principle altogether different from justification by works. It was not by personal merit. It was not by complying with the Law. It was in a mode entirely different.

(5) In being justified by faith, it is meant, therefore, that we are treated as righteous; that we are forgiven; that we are admitted to the favor of God, and treated as his friends.

(6) In this act, faith, is a mere instrument, an antecedent, a "sine qua non," what God has been pleased to appoint as a condition on which men may be treated as righteous. It expresses a state of mind which is demonstrative of love to God; of affection for his cause and character; of reconciliation and friendship; and is therefore that state to which he has been graciously pleased to promise pardon and acceptance.

(7) Since this is not a matter of law; since the Law could not be said to demand it; as it is on a different principle; and as the acceptance of faith, or of a believer, cannot be a matter of merit or claim, so justification is of grace, or mere favor. It is in no sense a matter of merit on our part, and thus stands distinguished entirely from justification by works, or by conformity to the Law. From beginning to end, it is, so far as we are concerned, a matter of grace. The merit by which all this is obtained, is the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, through whom this plan is proposed, and by whose atonement alone God can consistently pardon and treat as righteous those who are in themselves ungodly; see Romans 4:5. In this place we have also evidence that faith is always substantially of the same character. In the case of Abraham it was confidence in God and his promises. All faith has the same nature, whether it be confidence in the Messiah, or in any of the divine promises or truths. As this confidence evinces the same state of mind, so it was as consistent to justify Abraham by it, as it is to justify him who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ under the gospel; see Heb. 11.

Those aren't the words of a man living with a pure conscience. Paul was blameless externally, but in his heart before God. That is why he says: "For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”" Covetousness is not visible from the outside.

So then we have to ask ourselves a deep question; could [i]our[/i] Gospel reach a Saul of Tarsus? I do not read in Romans 7 that Paul admitted to outward transgressions but that he recognized the dynamic of 'The Sin' living inside of him. He recognized that he was corrupted from within- even though he was able to withstand the letter of the Law. This is what Jesus exposed in the Sermon on the Mount.