|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 26, 2006 17:34:45 GMT -5
R.C. Sproul apparently says no in The Pelagian Captivity of the Church. "In the nineteenth century, there was a preacher who became very popular in America, who wrote a book on theology, coming out of his own training in law, in which he made no bones about his Pelagianism. He rejected not only Augustinianism, but he also rejected semi-Pelagianism and stood clearly on the subject of unvarnished Pelagianism, saying in no uncertain terms, without any ambiguity, that there was no Fall and that there is no such thing as original sin. This man went on to attack viciously the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and in addition to that, to repudiate as clearly and as loudly as he could the doctrine of justification by faith alone by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This man’s basic thesis was, we don’t need the imputation of the righteousness of Christ because we have the capacity in and of ourselves to become righteous. His name: Charles Finney, one of America’s most revered evangelists. Now, if Luther was correct in saying that sola fide is the article upon which the Church stands or falls, if what the reformers were saying is that justification by faith alone is an essential truth of Christianity, who also argued that the substitutionary atonement is an essential truth of Christianity; if they’re correct in their assessment that those doctrines are essential truths of Christianity, the only conclusion we can come to is that Charles Finney was not a Christian. I read his writings and I say, “I don’t see how any Christian person could write this.” And yet, he is in the Hall of Fame of Evangelical Christianity in America. He is the patron saint of twentieth-century Evangelicalism. And he is not semi-Pelagian; he is unvarnished in his Pelagianism." Charles Finney said concerning the doctrine of original sin: "This doctrine is a stumbling-block both to the church and the world, infinitely dishonorable to God, and an abomination alike to God and the human intellect, and should be banished from every pulpit, and from every formula of doctrine, and from the world. It is a relic of heathen philosophy, and was foisted in among the doctrines of Christianity by Augustine, as every one may know who will take the trouble to examine for himself...The dogma of constitutional moral depravity (sinful nature), is a part and parcel of the doctrine of a necessitated will. It is a branch of grossly false and heathenish philosophy. How infinitely absurd, dangerous, and unjust, then, to embody it in a standard of Christian doctrine, to give it the place of an indispensable article of faith, and denounce all who will not swallow its absurdities, as heretics!" Now I consider it unquestionable that Charles Finney was a Christian. Without a doubt there have been few in history as effective as Finney in winning souls and seeing genuine revival. Any unbiased reader of his biography "Memoirs" (Now - "Holy Spirit Revivals")and "Lectures on Revivals of Religion" must admit this. So here we find something interesting. Finney is considered a heretic by much of the Church, and yet God was clearly with him. John Wesley said something thought provoking concerning the Augustine / Pelagius controversy... Nevertheless it is certain, that the gates of hell did never totally prevail against it (The Church). God always reserved a seed for himself; a few that worshipped him in spirit and in truth. I have often doubted, whether these were not the very persons whom the rich and honourable Christians, who will always have number as well as power on their side, did not stigmatize, from time to time, with the title of heretics. Perhaps it was chiefly by this artifice of the devil and his children, that, the good which was in them being evil spoken of, they were prevented from being so extensively useful as otherwise they might have been. Nay, I have doubted whether that arch-heretic, Montanus, was not one of the holiest men in the second century. Yea, I would not affirm, that the arch-heretic of the fifth century, (as plentifully as he has been bespattered for many ages,) was not one of the holiest men of that age, not excepting St. Augustine himself. (A wonderful saint! As full of pride, passion, bitterness, censoriousness, and as foul-mouthed to all that contradicted him, as George Fox himself.) I verily believe, the real heresy of Pelagius was neither more nor less than this: The holding that Christians may, by the grace of God, (not without it; that I take to be a mere slander,) "go on to perfection;" or, in other words, "fulfil the law of Christ."
"But St. Augustine says:" -- When Augustine's passions were heated, his word is not worth a rush. And here is the secret: St. Augustine was angry at Pelagius: Hence he slandered and abused him, (as his manner was,) without either fear or shame. And St. Augustine was then in the Christian world, what Aristotle was afterwards: There needed no other proof of any assertion, than Ipse dixit :"St. Augustine said it." You can read Finney's works for yourself at: www.gospeltruth.net/finneyindex.htm
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 26, 2006 19:22:44 GMT -5
I don't know enough personally, but I heard one preacher giving off about how finney is placed on a pedestal when it comes to revival experiences in america. He basically made out that he wasn't half the godly man Jonathan Edwards was.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 26, 2006 19:31:03 GMT -5
Was that MacArther? I'm told he speaks very negatively of Finney.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 26, 2006 19:53:06 GMT -5
Most people in the Reformed tradition dislike Finney. I think the feeling was mutual. Finney really attacked one of the most respected creeds in the Reformed tradition - The Westminister Confession. He wrote: "Every uninspired attempt to frame for the church an authoritative standard of opinion which shall be regarded as an unquestionable exposition of the word of God, is not only impious in itself, but it is also a tacit assumption of the fundamental dogma of Papacy. The Assembly of Divines did more than to assume the necessity of a Pope to give law to the opinions of men; they assumed to create an immortal one, or rather to embalm their own creed, and preserve it as that confession of faith and catechism as an authoritative standard of doctrine, have absurdly adopted the most obnoxious principle of Popery, and elevated their confession and catechism to the Papal throne and into the place of the Holy Ghost...It is better to have a living than a dead Pope. If we must have an authoritative expounder of the word of God, let us have a living one, so as not to preclude the hope of improvement. 'A living dog is better than a dead lion (Ecc. 9:4), so a living Pope is better than a dead and stereotyped confession of faith, that holds all men bound to subscribe to it's unalterable dogmas and it's unvarying terminology." One of the strange things is that Finney was a Presbyterian and not a Methodist.
|
|
|
Post by josh on Jan 26, 2006 20:02:01 GMT -5
The majority of those that hold to Reformed Theology, say Finney was not saved.
But others say he was, people like Leonard Ravenhill, Keith Green were majorly influenced by Finney
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 26, 2006 20:31:25 GMT -5
He sure seemed to be possesed by something... it would be hardly imaginable that it was the devil...
|
|
|
Post by Messenger Micah on Jan 26, 2006 21:27:14 GMT -5
Finnney was a Christian. Read his writings. Look at the fruit of his life. Something else to consider about Finney's theology was that in his day hyper-Calvinism was prevailing. Men were being told to repent but yet they could not. They must wait for God's timing. This was definitely a reason why Finney put such a strong emphasis on man's ability and responsibility.
Based on everything I have read in scriptures and from Finney I see nothing in his theology that is not 100% biblical. When I first began to read some of his writings I did not think I was even saved. As I look back on those days I have to come to the conclusion that if God means what he says then I was not saved and would have went to hell.
Some of Finney's theology definitely goes against alot of what we here taught traditionally from most ministers. I believe it is mainly because of Finney's holiness of life, prayer life, and doctrine that he taught as to why he had such a powerful ministry.
Most people who criticize Finney have never read him for themselves.
As to the comment about him not being half as godly as Jonathan Edwards (I would never want to criticize someone like Jonathan Edwards), I doubt if that person read any of his own writings or his memiors.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 26, 2006 21:36:28 GMT -5
Messenger Micah you make a good point about understanding Finney in historical context. I was thinking earlier today about how so much theological doctrine has been formed as a reaction to a historical situation.
|
|
|
Post by Messenger Micah on Jan 26, 2006 22:03:28 GMT -5
Thanks. Yes I read that several years ago in his book on Revival Lectures. I am not sure what the chapter was called but it was something about how to preach. From what I read I got the impression that was the main reason he put such a strong emphasis on those areas.
Reading that along with many other things I have read from Finney has really caused me to target my preaching to destroy the excuses and lies people are hung up on.
I think most people believe they are not bad enough to go to hell, but I do not see many trying to work their way to heaven, so I don't put much emphasis on Calvinistic doctrines.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 26, 2006 22:07:38 GMT -5
I would say that Finneys "Lectures on Revival" is a must read for every soul winner.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 27, 2006 7:44:07 GMT -5
I'm not going to name the preacher, but it wasn't MacArthur. If hyper-calvinism was prevalent in finney's day then it is no wonder he was frustrated at "so called" calvinists. Hyper calvanism is pretty much heresy. It binds people and corrupts the free offer of the gospel to all men.
As Dr Paisley once said, across the door of salvation it says 'whosoever', walk through and look back and it says 'God's elect'.
As for finney's comment on the westminster divines...that's crazy speech!
|
|
|
Post by Messenger Micah on Jan 27, 2006 12:31:06 GMT -5
Armen,
Is there a reason you never capitalize Finney's name. I noticed you capitalize everyone else's name.
Secondly, have you ever read any of Finney's works for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Jan 27, 2006 12:54:17 GMT -5
No, that was not intentional at all brother. Very strange however. I've read a very brief outline of his life but I know little about him.
|
|
|
Post by Rick on Feb 8, 2006 2:29:19 GMT -5
Was Finney a Christian? Only God knows.
Someone said all the fruit that came out of his "ministry"
Hmm once again we are back to the modern Gospel based on numbers...So the Mormons must be Christians because of their evangelistic zeal as well as the JW's, Scientology, Muslim and any other group that has large numbers.
This is NOT implying that finney is like them, just saying you can;t judge a book by it's cover or in this case its numbers.
Most know the numbers quoted by Ray Comfort of 1 church organization had 294,000 decisions!!! Wow looks great, 1 year later they only found 14,000, I bet the organization thought things were well at first! I know the organization and was involved with them for a number of years.
Back to the question, was Finney a Christian, only God knows but you have to winder about his theology and not stay focused on the revival efforts. Without sound theology you are nothing more then a carnival show.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Feb 8, 2006 15:12:31 GMT -5
No one is talking about numbers only. You are assuming. It is a well known fact that of the MANY (and there were many) converts under Finney's ministry, that at least 80% never backslid or went back into the world. They remained faithful to God throughout their lives, lived holy and obedient, and lived to glorify God and advance His kingdom.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Feb 8, 2006 16:58:25 GMT -5
Amen Messenger Micah!
Finney's fruit was definitely not about numbers. In fact when God used him in revival in Rochester, NY there was a dramatic change in the town. Readers Digest did a couple of articles 50 years apart and concluded that that Rochester, NY was Americas friendliest/kindest city. When they traced it back to find out why they concluded it was because of the ministry of Finney. Now that's fruit!
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Feb 8, 2006 18:37:29 GMT -5
Fruit that remains (John 15:16).
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Mar 16, 2006 19:35:37 GMT -5
"Without sound theology you are nothing but a carnival show?" Calvinists would say arminianists are a carnival show. Arminianists would say calvinists are a carnival show. So everybodies a carnival show because everybody wants it their way. I choose to have it God's way and accept that there are myteries we cannot possibly understand.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 16, 2006 23:17:25 GMT -5
Well I guess you are the only one with perfect doctrine then.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Mar 19, 2006 12:17:08 GMT -5
I never said that I had perfect doctrine. No one has perfect doctrine. In fact the aspect of perfect doctrine is not even conceivable to the human mind because we are finite in knowledge and understanding. God holds the monopoly on truth, not calvin, arminius, luther, owen, or any other theologian. The fact remains and is yet to be refuted that God knows things we dont, and that knowledge that we cannot ever dream of having is expressed within the word of God in many forms. Soverignty, election, predestination, and the such are things we just cant understand. I really know nothing compared to some of you on this board. All I can do is offer my two sense, and hope for no wisecracks.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 19, 2006 13:43:09 GMT -5
Maybe it was a wisecrack, I don't know, but in your above post you wrote something to the effect of "...so everyone is a carnival show (Calvinists and Arminians) because they want it their way, but I choose to have it God's way..."
This may not be the way you meant it but that is the way it sounds. "Everyone else is following someone else but I alone am following Jesus." Remember out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. It is good to examine yourself on this. You have other posts that hint of this same attitude. "Everyone on this board quotes other people...I get my revelations from God..." I have noticed in most of your posts you also quote people.
Anyway, I do appreciate you and do not want to be argumentive or contentious, but if you are going to come on here and make statements that are untrue like "No one on here ever posts without quoting someone else..." then you should not complain when someone challenges you on it in a direct way.
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Mar 21, 2006 17:15:52 GMT -5
My beliefs line up with the reformed church and I am not a fan of Finney, but I'm also honest.
1.) Numbers don't necessarily indicate favor. Jeremiah and Noah and even Jesus were failures, pragmatically speaking ;-) 2.) It's entirely possible he was saved but just had shoddy doctrine. It was the very meticulous Calvin who said the best of men are probably only 80% theologically accurate. Calvin, 80%?? Where does that place me? 40% on a good day?
I don't think it's really worth the effort to examine the man anymore, he's dead. Examine living wolves in sheep's clothings, but in Finney's case I'd just examine his teachings to see if they agree with scripture. Am I wrong?
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 21, 2006 17:34:43 GMT -5
I have been reading Finney material for 10 years. True, numbers do not necessarily mean anything, however when you have a person who brought true revival everywhere he went for decades with thousands of dramatic conversions, accompanied by deep conviction of sin, crying out to God for mercy, repentance to the point where bars and places of sin went out of buSINess went out of buSINess because no one was sinning anymore, whole towns becoming converted, going on to live active, fruitful, obedient, prayerful, soulwinning lives, and 85% of the conversions under his ministry never went back into sin, that is truly fruit that remains.
There was a study done recently that found the city of Rochester, New York was the most charitable city in America. They traced the reason back to a revival Finney brought there last century.
Finney would preach on the holiness of God and destroy every excuse a sinner had for not submitting himself to God. If you read any of his material you will quickly realize there was NO ROOM for faulty conversions. The messages were too penetrating and searching.
Most people who are critical of Finney have never read any of Finney's material for themselves. Have you?
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 21, 2006 17:37:37 GMT -5
One more thing. As far as Finney being a dead man, and examining him, I am no better than Paul. He said to follow him as he follows Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). I will follow anyone as long as they are following Christ.
Do you apply this same rule to people of reformed theology, like Spurgeon, etc? Is he worth examing? He is dead.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 21, 2006 18:55:48 GMT -5
To be honest, in my opinion there are very few men alive that are worth seeking to tread in their footsteps, at least I don't know any very personally. If you are REALLY sold out to God, it's difficult not to look at mighty men of old, see their practices and try to follow in their footsteps. Hearing about Robert Murry McChayne makes me weep at times. As for Spurgeon, doesn't every preacher wonder how a 19 year old without ever going to Bible college, was called to preach in a church which held 1200, but only 100 attended and inside 3 months the church was packed out and they had to build a larger building??
Oh God! Have mercy on us and our pathetic devotion to thee!!
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Mar 21, 2006 19:16:08 GMT -5
First, you sounded offended. I honestly did not mean to undermine Finney but rather shine some reality into the conversation. I actually was trying to uphold his personal salvation. Finney would preach on the holiness of God and destroy every excuse a sinner had for not submitting himself to God. If you read any of his material you will quickly realize there was NO ROOM for faulty conversions. The messages were too penetrating and searching. What I think happened is God used him and the sinner heard the truth that was necessary: the Law and the gospel. Just because someone has a bad idea here and there doesn't mean God can't use him and make sure the /good/ stuff gets through. Most people who are critical of Finney have never read any of Finney's material for themselves. Have you? Honestly, no, I haven't. I imagine what I'd find is a man who truly loved the Lord, he just didn't see him clearly. That's why my post was not an attack on him, just trying to shine some reality into the conversation. Relax, I wasn't attacking Finney! :-)
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 21, 2006 20:44:54 GMT -5
How did I sound offended? I thought my response was very direct, factual, and to the point.
I have never met anyone who is critical of Finney who has actually read his material for themself.
I am glad you at least think Finney was saved. I do not know of anyone since bible days either Armian or Calvinistic who has had the deep, long lasting results that Finney had (again I am not talking numbers only-I am talking true conversions that had lasting results, people not being able to go near an area without getting convicted of sin, longevity, converts who had true holiness of heart and life, who prayed and won souls, etc).
You say you are not attacking Finney, but you continue to insinuate he had wrong views of God and wrong theology, yet you have never actually read anything he wrote for yourself.
Also, do you apply the same standard of examining the dead man Finney that you do with others of reformed theology such as Spurgeon, etc. Are they worth examing?
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 21, 2006 20:47:28 GMT -5
Armen, Amen. I agree with you. I am glad we finally agree on something.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Mar 21, 2006 21:33:29 GMT -5
First of all, I think it is VERY WRONG for us to tell anyone whether they are saved or not based on theological differences. Charles Finney was a man who was mightily used by God, there is NO doubt about that! Anyone who reads about him will know that. I have read a few of his books and can say that I don't agree with everything that he says. However, I don't agree with everything everyone on here says either...yet ALL of us are being used by God, yes? Finney, Moody, Spurgeon, Whitfield, Edwards, Wesley....were ALL used by God, yet if you got all of them in a room, I am sure that they could ALL find something to disagree on. Why don't we just leave it at that? I like Sproul, but don't care for what he said on this....Finney WAS A CHRISTIAN...no doubt in my mind!
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Mar 22, 2006 6:42:26 GMT -5
You say you are not attacking Finney, but you continue to insinuate he had wrong views of God and wrong theology, yet you have never actually read anything he wrote for yourself. I base that upon the opinions of men I trust. Sometimes you just have to trust the words of other men. Also, do you apply the same standard of examining the dead man Finney that you do with others of reformed theology such as Spurgeon, etc. Are they worth examing? Of course! If they be wolves let the scriptures fall upon their heads and crush them!
|
|