-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Preacher4Truth
Well-Known Member
Anthony D'Arienzo
Well-Known Member
That is a fair question...would Finneys own words help you out?
The Oberlin Evangelist
February 13, 1839
Professor Finney's Letters--No. 3.
TO THE CONVERTS OF THE GREAT REVIVALS THAT HAVE PREVAILED IN THE UNITED STATES, WITHIN THE FEW LAST YEARS.
[#2]
Beloved--I closed my last letter, by adverting to the fact, that several professedly religious periodicals have so referred to what I had said, in regard to your being "a disgrace to religion," as virtually to represent me, as denying the reality, genuineness, and power of those glorious revivals, in which you were converted. I denied having said any thing, in that connexion to that effect.
But I did assert in my Lecture, and re-assert in my last letter, that I believed many of you were, by your lives, a disgrace to the religion of Jesus Christ. Now, beloved, I said not this, nor do I now say it to bring a railing accusation against you. But for the purpose of preparing the way to put some questions home to your conscience--with the design to turn your eyes fully upon your own life, and spirit, as exhibited before the world.
Are men, by beholding your good works, constrained to "glorify your Father who is in heaven?" Or is the name of God blasphemed, on account of your earthly and unchristian life and spirit?
Can those that remain unconverted, in the place where you live, bear witness that a great and divine change was wrought in you by the Spirit of God?
I beseech you, in the name of Christ, to inquire, are your impenitent acquaintances constrained to confess, that that must have been a work of God, that could have wrought so great a change in you, as they daily witness?
Do you think that the interests of religion are really advanced by your life, and that you are continually making an impression, in favor of holiness, on those around you?
Do they witness in you the "peace of God that passeth understanding?"
Do they behold, in you, that sweet and divine complacency in the will and ways of God, that spreads a heavenly serenity, and calm, and sweetness over your mind, in the midst of the trials, and vicissitudes, to which you are subjected?
Or do they behold you vexed, anxious, careful, easily disturbed, and exhibiting the spirit of the world? My dear soul, if this is so, you are a horrible disgrace to religion--you are unlike Jesus. Was this the spirit that Jesus manifested?
Anthony D'Arienzo
Well-Known Member
Here is more error from your man;
Finney, in denying the imputation of original sin, denied the moral character of infants and taught that moral character was developed as they attained moral agency [“age of accountability”]:
…the death and suffering of infants previous to actual transgression, is adduced as an argument to prove, that infants have a sinful nature. To this I reply: That this argument must assume, that there must be sin wherever there is suffering and death. But this assumption proves too much, as it would prove that mere animals have a sinful nature, or have committed actual sin. An argument that proves too much proves nothing. Physical sufferings prove only physical, and not moral, depravity. Previous to moral agency, infants are no more subjects of moral government than brutes are; therefore, their sufferings and death are to be accounted for as are those of brutes, namely, by ascribing them to physical interference with the laws of life and health.960
….Another argument for a sinful constitution is, that unless infants have a sinful nature, they do not need sanctification to fit them for heaven.
Answer:
This argument assumes, that, if they are not sinful, they must be holy; whereas they are neither sinful or holy, until they are moral agents, and render themselves so by obedience or disobedience to the moral law. If they are to go to heaven, they must be made holy or must be sanctified.961
958 Ibid., pp. 52–53. 959 Ibid., p. 157. 960 Finney, Systematic Theology, p. 317. For a further discussion of Finney’s doctrine, see B. B. Warfield, Op. cit., p. 180ff. 961 Loc. cit. 343
REGENERATION
The doctrine of regeneration as taught by Finney, based upon plenary human ability, and as concerning the work of the Spirit, was “Congruism,” or moral suasion first taught by Claude Pajon of the Salmurian School. Finney considered regeneration and conversion to be synonymous, thus further confusing the issue. As to the sinner’s alleged role, regeneration was simply a change in the direction of the will.
The doctrine upon which I insisted, that the command to obey God implied the power to do so, created in some places considerable opposition at first…the Spirit’s influences are those of teaching, persuading, convicting and, of course, a moral influence, I was regarded by many as teaching new and strange doctrines.962
Christ has expressly taught that nothing is regeneration, or virtue, but entire obedience, or the renunciation of all selfishness.963
Why is sin so natural to mankind? Not because their nature is itself sinful, but because the appetites and passions tend so strongly to self-indulgence. These are temptations to sin, but sin itself consists not in these appetites and propensities, but in the voluntary committal of the will to their indulgence. This committal of the will is selfishness, and when the will is once given up to sin, it is very natural to sin. The will once committed to self–indulgence as its end, selfish actions are in a sense spontaneous.
The constitution of a moral being as a whole, when all the powers are developed, does not tend to sin, but strongly in an opposite direction; as is manifest from the fact that when reason is thoroughly developed by the Holy Spirit, it is more than a match for the sensibility, and turns the heart to God. The difficulty is, that the sensibility gets the start of reason, and engages the attention in devising means of self-gratification, and thus retards, and in a great measure prevents, the development of the ideas of the reason which were designed to control the will. It is this morbid development that the Holy Spirit is given to rectify, by so forcing truth upon the attention, as to secure the development of the reason. By doing this, He brings the will under the influence of truth. Our senses reveal to us the objects correlated to our animal nature and propensities. The Holy Spirit reveals God and the spiritual world, and all that class of objects that are correlated to our higher nature, so as to give reason the control of the will. This is regeneration and sanctification…964
Regeneration: the same as the new birth…same as conversion.965
We have said that regeneration is synonymous, in the Bible, with a new heart. But sinners are required to make to themselves a new heart, which they could not do, if they were not active in this change. If the work is a work of God, in such a sense, that He must first regenerate the heart or soul before the agency of the sinner begins, it were absurd and unjust to require him to make to himself a new heart…
962 Finney, Autobiography, p. 157. 963 Ibid., p. 148. 964 Ibid., pp. 329–330. 965 Ibid., p. 798. Finney equates regeneration at times with a moral persuasive influence upon the mind, with sanctification, and with conversion. This confusion results from his Pelagian– perfectionist presuppositions. 344
Anthony D'Arienzo
Well-Known Member
T1300,
More Finney for you;
Regeneration is ascribed to man in the gospel, which it could not be, if the term were designed to express only the agency of the Holy Spirit….
Regeneration then is a radical change of the ultimate intention, and, of course, of the end or object of life. We have seen, that the choice of an end is efficient in producing executive volitions, or the use of means to obtain its end. A selfish ultimate choice is, therefore, a wicked heart, out of which flows every evil; and a benevolent ultimate choice is a good heart, out of which flows every good and commendable deed. Regeneration, to have the characteristics ascribed to it in the Bible, must consist in a change in the attitude of the will, or a change in its ultimate choice, intention, or preference; a change from selfishness to benevolence; from choosing self-gratification as the supreme and ultimate end of life, to the supreme and ultimate choice of the highest well-being of God and of the universe…
…the subject is active in regeneration…regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness to love or benevolence; or, in other words, in turning from the supreme choice of self-gratification, to the supreme love of God and the equal love of his neighbor. Of course the subject of regeneration must be an agent in the work.966
In complaining against a Calvinistic tract written with the title, “Regeneration, The Effect of Divine Power,” Finney stated:
Now it had been just as true, just as philosphical, and just as scriptural, if he had said that converson was the work of man. The writer…has only told half the truth…The very title of this tract is a stumbling block. It tells the truth, but it does not tell all the truth. And a tract might be written upon this proposition, that ‘Conversion or regeneration is the work of man;’ which would be just as true, just as scriptural and just as philospohical, as the one to which I have alluded.967
The idea of a sinner’s being passive in regeneration, is calculated to destroy souls. It involves the absurdity of his having a passive volition. Every impenitent sinner is infinitely guilty, for not making himself a new heart; for not going the whole length of performing the work himself.
To say “I can’t love God and repent,” is to plead one sin for the commission of another. This view illustrates the nature of the sinner’s dependence on the Spirit of God. The only necessity for his aid or influence, lies in the sinner’s pertinacious obstinacy; and when he converts the sinner, he only overcomes that obstinacy.
The Spirit uses means in producing conversion. He does not come and take right hold of the heart and perform an operation upon it; but he presents motives by means of the truth; he persuades, and the sinner yields to his persuasion. Many have supposed that he moves, by a direct and immediate act, either upon the motive to give it efficiency, or upon the mind to make it willing. But there is no mystery about it. Every Christian knows how he was induced to change his governing purpose or his heart. He was convinced and persuaded, and freely gave his own heart to God without compulsion. And I know not which is the greater infidel, he that denies the agency of the Spirit in conversion; or he that believes God has provided means which are not adapted to the end for which they are employed.
966 Ibid., pp. 365–371. (Italics added). 967 Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion, p. 188. 345
There is a sense in which a sinner does make a new heart. There is also a sense in which God does it; another, in which a preacher does it; and another, in which the truth or the word of God does it…968
Finney also viewed regeneration as a temporary state in the context of his peculiar view of perfectionism. One could be regenerate, then unregenerate by the commission of sin. This betrays his utter ignorance or denial of the biblical doctrine of justification:
If regeneration consists in a change in the ruling preference of the mind, or in the ultimate intention, as we shall see it does, it is plain, that an individual can be born again, and afterwards cease to be virtuous. That a Christian is able to apostatize, is evident, from the many warnings addressed to Christians in the Bible. A Christian may certainly fall into sin and unbelief, and afterwards be renewed, both to repentance and faith.969
The theory of the mixed character of moral actions, is an eminently dangerous theory, as it leads its advocates to suppose, that in their acts of rebellion there is something holy, or, more strictly, there is some holiness in them, while they are in the known commission of sin.
It is dangerous, because it leads its advocates to place the standard of conversion, or regeneration, exceedingly low to make regeneration, repentance, true love to God, faith, etc., consistent with the known or conscious commission of present sin. This must be a highly dangerous philosophy. The fact is, regeneration, or holiness, under any form, is quite another thing than it is supposed to be, by those who maintain the philosophy of the mixed character of moral action. There can scarcely be a more dangerous error than to say, that while we are conscious of present sin, we are or can be in a state of acceptance with God.970
THE ATONEMENT
Finney adhered to the Moral Government Theory of the Atonement first formulated by Hugo Grotius and imported into “New England Theology” by Joseph Bellamy. According to this theory, the sufferings and death of our Lord enabled God to be merciful to sinners and accept them on their faith. When Finney mentions the idea of “satisfaction,” it is not in the orthodox sense of Christ as a penal substitute for the sinner under Divine justice, but of “public justice,” a term used in the context of a general and indefinite atonement, as the entire statement below suggests.
An atonement was needed for the removal of obstacles to the free exercise of benevolence toward our race. Without an atonement, the race of man after the fall sustained to the government of God the relation of rebels and outlaws. And before God, as the great executive magistrate of the universe, could manifest His benevolence toward them, an atonement must be decided upon and made known, as the reason upon which His favorable treatment of them was conditioned. An atonement was needed to promote the glory and influence of God in the universe... An atonement was needed to present overpowering motives to repentance. An atonement was needed, that the offer of pardon might not seem like connivance at sin. An atonement was needed to manifest the sincerity of God in His legal enactments. An atonement was needed to make it safe to present the offer and
968 Finney, Sermon: Making A New Heart, pp. 6–7. Mark the confusion which results from the identification of regeneration with conversion. (Italics added). 969 Finney, Systematic Theology, p. 145. 970 Ibid., p. 149. 346
More Finney for you;
Regeneration is ascribed to man in the gospel, which it could not be, if the term were designed to express only the agency of the Holy Spirit….
Regeneration then is a radical change of the ultimate intention, and, of course, of the end or object of life. We have seen, that the choice of an end is efficient in producing executive volitions, or the use of means to obtain its end. A selfish ultimate choice is, therefore, a wicked heart, out of which flows every evil; and a benevolent ultimate choice is a good heart, out of which flows every good and commendable deed. Regeneration, to have the characteristics ascribed to it in the Bible, must consist in a change in the attitude of the will, or a change in its ultimate choice, intention, or preference; a change from selfishness to benevolence; from choosing self-gratification as the supreme and ultimate end of life, to the supreme and ultimate choice of the highest well-being of God and of the universe…
…the subject is active in regeneration…regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness to love or benevolence; or, in other words, in turning from the supreme choice of self-gratification, to the supreme love of God and the equal love of his neighbor. Of course the subject of regeneration must be an agent in the work.966
In complaining against a Calvinistic tract written with the title, “Regeneration, The Effect of Divine Power,” Finney stated:
Now it had been just as true, just as philosphical, and just as scriptural, if he had said that converson was the work of man. The writer…has only told half the truth…The very title of this tract is a stumbling block. It tells the truth, but it does not tell all the truth. And a tract might be written upon this proposition, that ‘Conversion or regeneration is the work of man;’ which would be just as true, just as scriptural and just as philospohical, as the one to which I have alluded.967
The idea of a sinner’s being passive in regeneration, is calculated to destroy souls. It involves the absurdity of his having a passive volition. Every impenitent sinner is infinitely guilty, for not making himself a new heart; for not going the whole length of performing the work himself.
To say “I can’t love God and repent,” is to plead one sin for the commission of another. This view illustrates the nature of the sinner’s dependence on the Spirit of God. The only necessity for his aid or influence, lies in the sinner’s pertinacious obstinacy; and when he converts the sinner, he only overcomes that obstinacy.
The Spirit uses means in producing conversion. He does not come and take right hold of the heart and perform an operation upon it; but he presents motives by means of the truth; he persuades, and the sinner yields to his persuasion. Many have supposed that he moves, by a direct and immediate act, either upon the motive to give it efficiency, or upon the mind to make it willing. But there is no mystery about it. Every Christian knows how he was induced to change his governing purpose or his heart. He was convinced and persuaded, and freely gave his own heart to God without compulsion. And I know not which is the greater infidel, he that denies the agency of the Spirit in conversion; or he that believes God has provided means which are not adapted to the end for which they are employed.
966 Ibid., pp. 365–371. (Italics added). 967 Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion, p. 188. 345
There is a sense in which a sinner does make a new heart. There is also a sense in which God does it; another, in which a preacher does it; and another, in which the truth or the word of God does it…968
Finney also viewed regeneration as a temporary state in the context of his peculiar view of perfectionism. One could be regenerate, then unregenerate by the commission of sin. This betrays his utter ignorance or denial of the biblical doctrine of justification:
If regeneration consists in a change in the ruling preference of the mind, or in the ultimate intention, as we shall see it does, it is plain, that an individual can be born again, and afterwards cease to be virtuous. That a Christian is able to apostatize, is evident, from the many warnings addressed to Christians in the Bible. A Christian may certainly fall into sin and unbelief, and afterwards be renewed, both to repentance and faith.969
The theory of the mixed character of moral actions, is an eminently dangerous theory, as it leads its advocates to suppose, that in their acts of rebellion there is something holy, or, more strictly, there is some holiness in them, while they are in the known commission of sin.
It is dangerous, because it leads its advocates to place the standard of conversion, or regeneration, exceedingly low to make regeneration, repentance, true love to God, faith, etc., consistent with the known or conscious commission of present sin. This must be a highly dangerous philosophy. The fact is, regeneration, or holiness, under any form, is quite another thing than it is supposed to be, by those who maintain the philosophy of the mixed character of moral action. There can scarcely be a more dangerous error than to say, that while we are conscious of present sin, we are or can be in a state of acceptance with God.970
THE ATONEMENT
Finney adhered to the Moral Government Theory of the Atonement first formulated by Hugo Grotius and imported into “New England Theology” by Joseph Bellamy. According to this theory, the sufferings and death of our Lord enabled God to be merciful to sinners and accept them on their faith. When Finney mentions the idea of “satisfaction,” it is not in the orthodox sense of Christ as a penal substitute for the sinner under Divine justice, but of “public justice,” a term used in the context of a general and indefinite atonement, as the entire statement below suggests.
An atonement was needed for the removal of obstacles to the free exercise of benevolence toward our race. Without an atonement, the race of man after the fall sustained to the government of God the relation of rebels and outlaws. And before God, as the great executive magistrate of the universe, could manifest His benevolence toward them, an atonement must be decided upon and made known, as the reason upon which His favorable treatment of them was conditioned. An atonement was needed to promote the glory and influence of God in the universe... An atonement was needed to present overpowering motives to repentance. An atonement was needed, that the offer of pardon might not seem like connivance at sin. An atonement was needed to manifest the sincerity of God in His legal enactments. An atonement was needed to make it safe to present the offer and
968 Finney, Sermon: Making A New Heart, pp. 6–7. Mark the confusion which results from the identification of regeneration with conversion. (Italics added). 969 Finney, Systematic Theology, p. 145. 970 Ibid., p. 149. 346
Triumph1300
Well-Known Member
Triumph1300
Well-Known Member
Nicely copied and pasted, Anthony. :-(
Not that it matters.....there are lots of negative comments about many spirit filled Christians on the internet as well.
Not that it matters.....there are lots of negative comments about many spirit filled Christians on the internet as well.
Lol...I just pass on that crazy long c/p stuff! A para or two is fine but...taking up like, a quarter of a page?!
Just too much.
Agreed,
These have buried their heads in sand. Folks fooling themselves only. All or nothing otherwise, why bother?!
Anthony D'Arienzo
Well-Known Member
Yeah I'm sure...but there are many like you who when their bluff gets called have no response except to dismiss it as if it were not true.
You have read Finney and thought his theology was peachy keen,is that right???
Anthony D'Arienzo
Well-Known Member
Well..he did not think I could back up my earlier post, said it was a drive by post.Lol...I just pass on that crazy long c/p stuff! A para or two is fine but...taking up like, a quarter of a page?!
Not sure he thinks that now...have much more I could have added,lol.
Finney was sincere for sure.
By his own mouth he looked back and said it was a failure,and if he could do it over again he would preach nothing but holiness in the life.
God has used even cults as a means to turn someone from darkness to light, but we should not promote cults, should we?
Anthony D'Arienzo
Well-Known Member
By the way...if you take a minute or two to break down and understand what he taught,you will see the error and never need to bother with it again.Lol...I just pass on that crazy long c/p stuff! A para or two is fine but...taking up like, a quarter of a page?!
Sorry Anthony, it would take a lot more than a "minute or two" to plow through all of that, and I would much rather spend time on other posts rather than one.
John Caldwell
Well-Known Member
I watched The Matrix when it first came out in 1999. In one scene Cypher is eating a steak in the matrix and says "Ignorance is bliss".
I've found that there are things of which we should be ignorant as Christians and things that of which we should be ignorant as adults. If you are not careful with online forums you will waste time wading through trash and foolishness. I've seen volumes of nonsense snipped and pasted on boards. I pause sometimes to read the memes because they are often funny, even if I am the target.
But I have also found a cure. I call it the "insanity muffler". You guys call it "the ignore feature". It helps limit the discussion to those you want in your back yard while preventing tares from taking hold and driving you insane.
Philip James
Well-Known Member
Anthony D'Arienzo
Well-Known Member
People complain and say, you took him out of context and such things,but when you supply page after page of the error,that should put an end to it.
Many people are sincere, many cults start with a sincere person trying to teach something.
When it becomes clear the person teaching has steered the titanic into the iceberg
Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
Greetings, Anthony. Hope you are well.
I was reading this, and I have no problems with it. The part I do have a problem with is the following miscaricature of it, whoever wrote the following: "Finney equates regeneration at times with a moral persuasive influence upon the mind, with sanctification, and with conversion." That's a really shallow way of interpreting what he was saying. Finney was talking about the renewing of the mind, which brings a man's soul into compliance with God's will and thus into obedience, so that he no longer says, "Lord, Lord" yet never does what He says. He's not "equating regeneration at times with a moral persuasive influence upon the mind." That's coming from someone who didn't actually read what he said but only wanted to accuse him. Finney's point was to say that the influence of the Holy Spirit is what brings about sanctification and true conversion because we have a part to play in entering into obedience, and the Spirit has been given to lead us into all truth; we are not mindless automatons, we must actively co-operate in becoming transformed into the image of God's dear Son.
You see, you stand in the office of Accuser WAY too often, Anthony, and you know we have had this discussion before. Why do you do this? The more you accuse others the more judgment you will bring down upon yourself when you stand before Him. As always, I'm not saying this is anger. I'm saying it out of concern. You serve Satan with this business, and yet nothing ever seems to deter you...
If you wish to discuss Finney's theology, I can create a thread for you. I've never read the man before, so it might be interesting if the community discussed it. But we will have to deal with what the actual scriptures themselves say on the matter in light of what the man actually says, and not miscaricatures, false assumptions and shallow accusations. You do no one a service when you present such things, nor do you do God a service. You serve only the Devil when you do this.
God bless, and I wish you well. But your frequent service to the enemy necessitates these kinds of interchanges.
Your friend,
Hidden
Last edited:
Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
Nothing anywhere near it yet, but the thing is, I hold out the possibility that the Lord Jesus Christ can potentially still do greater works through me than he did in His own body if I give myself increasingly to obedience to the Spirit of God, thorough incessant prayer, continual fasting, and a life of utter consecration unto Him, until it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me, speaks through me, and acts through me.
I believe this should be the hope of every Christian, and that all should have hope that He can use them mightily if they will give themselves completely to Him.
God bless! And good to see you on the forum again.
Last edited:
@michaelvpardo Seems that the contexts of tongues was in the Apostolic period before the Scriptures were complete.
Apt comparison - in reverse - with the Tower of Babel.
Interestingly the French philosopher Jacques Derrida said that the Tower of Babel was a crucial event which made translation both obligatory and impossible...
Thank you for your post, but the Holy Spirit in you made you write almost the opposite of what you meant to. You may not believe His word but He does. Don't worry the Lord has promised you some signs (at least 3). Have a blessed day.
Similar threads
