Finney got it ALL WRONG

Your sooo predictable.

You almost make salvation out to be a gift "forced" upon a man--a force that no man can withstand.  Seems more like a burden than a free gift.  Maybe I am reading more into it.

"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, CHOOSE YOU THIS DAY whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15, of course, emphasis mine)

Doh! I meant "you're."

Joe, keep moving forward.  The Calvinistic army is on the move.  :-)  The bullets are flying!

"Thus, Finney-ism mischaracterizes God as neither sovereign nor almighty in the realm of soteriology."

I don't know enough about Finney to defend or condemn him.  But I do know, from growing up as an Arminian, that Arminians just don't believe that God's power is finite.  They DO believe He's almighty and can do anything He wants to.  If they ever say He "can't" do something, they obviously ( obvious to anyone who grew up this way) mean that He has "chosen not" to do something.

Perhaps there are all kinds of things that Arminians are wrong about, but to say that they think God is not almighty is just not true.  To someone like myself who would very much like to make sense of this debate after years and years of trying, this kind of mischaracterization is just not helpful at all.

(Hope I'm still on everyone's good side.)

I'm in your court, Housewife. Great comment.

B8 also wrote over on Joe's blog that "Finney's anti-Christian, anti-Bible enlightenment 'gospel' swept through this nation and polluted the church."

This comment, too, smacks as a mischaracterization from my limited reading on Charles Finney.  I am starting to see an unhealthy trend.  I am with you on this one, Housewife.

Wesley,

Why does this sound like a “mischaracterization"? Please know that I enjoy reading everyone’s comments. I’ve been blessed for some time now by the different viewpoints represented by "As it is in Heaven" and "Son’s of Liberty". It’s obvious that there is great conviction and love for the truth in this little corner of cyberspace. But sometimes it appears that orthodoxy (truth spoken in love for the glory of Christ ) can be lost for the sake of an expedient point. Many sincere and faithful Christians have struggled with Finney’s theology and methodology. Cultural analysts have noted as well that under Finney’s techniques multitudes have professed conversion but later failed to exhibit the spirit of Jesus Christ, in meekness, humility, charity, and self-denial. These are weighty topics. I think anyone with their finger on the pulse of society realizes that revival is badly needed. What is “true” revival, though? For what it's worth, that’s what I hear (not bullets) whenever Finney and the ideas of the atonement are brought up.

From what I have read about Finney, he had a passion for the lost.  He desired for no one to enter Hell.  Unfortunately, this cannot always be said from his Calvinistic opponents.  Could this be because they often take a hands-off approach because God has already "predestined" those to Hell?  I am not sure.  However, the title of your post is labeled "Finney got it ALL WRONG."  I hope this is just one of your standard over-the-top expressions.  Did he really get it ALL wrong?

In his sermon titled 'God's Love for a sinning world,' he begins by saying:

"Sin is the most expensive thing in the universe.  Nothing else can cost so much.  Pardoned or unpardoned, its cost is infinitely great.  Pardoned, the cost falls chiefly on the great atoning Substitute; unpardoned, it must fall on the head of the guilty sinner."

Finney was also very outspoken about slavery.  He was, sadly, a minority in the Christian community.  Also, one of the wisest things Finney did was realize the immorality of freemasonry and leave the group (something George Washington, Jackson, etc never did).

Was Finney perfect?  Of course not.  Do I disagree with some of his theology?  Sure.  Will I call him anti-Christian?  That is a little steep.  I'll leave that to the hate-mongering Calvinists!

Odysseus,

Many of our conversation here and over at Son of Liberty come from individuals who have either been raised in church, knowledgeable about the Bible, and/or concerned about truth.  However, with this, I believe we can fall prey of "making a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, we make him twice as much a child of hell as ourselves."

I already quoted on another post about the struggle at Corinth for individuals to raise theologians up, like Paul or Apollos.  I believe we do that as well today.

We take down the name of Paul to raise up Apollos.  Or in more applicable, we take down Armenius to raise up Calvin.  Interestingly, it was not Calvin who created TULIP but those who raised up Calvin (after his death).  Calvinism is not the gosple; neither is Armenism.  Calling Finney anti-Christian is very harsh words.  Are the harsh words justified?  Maybe.  But not by the quote given in this post.

Can you name a Finney-ist who believes that God is not sovereign?

Yet YOU draw the conclusion that they deny the sovereignty of God.  Is this any different then saying, "Read the works of a 5-point Calvinist and you will see that 'the logical extension' is that man is a machine with no choice.  God's love is weakened and 'elect' men need not play any part in the salvation of another.  They can only watch as those not chosen are bound for hell."  This is sillyness!!

B8, we can keep going round circles.  But I believe you are reading a whole lot more into this quote you have given by Finney.  How much different is this passionate urge from Finney any different then the passionate request of Joshua?  "CHOOSE YOU THIS DAY ..."

At Pentecost, Peter "pleaded" with them to "save" themselves "from this corrupt generation."  The response?  3,000 were added to their number THAT DAY.  Sounds like a revival meeting to me!

Wesley,

Thank you for your response. I understand what you are saying. The sin of idolatry is just as rampant today as it was in Corinth. Our challenge, as we seek to serve our risen and reigning Lord, is to keep all human authority (even our own) in its proper place: at the foot of the cross. Your point regarding TULIP is also appreciated. It wasn’t Calvin’s doing. As you alluded, the acronym (along with its teachings) was created as a response to the theology that developed in Holland in the late 16th century. This theology was associated with the name of Jacob Arminius. The synod of Dort was given the responsibility of responding to his new teachings and found dispute with five points. The acronym became an easy way to handle them in a biblical fashion.

With that being the context of TULIP, is it fair to say that these prayerful deliberations of the synod were merely an effort to take down Arminus in order to raise up John Calvin? I hope history is not that cryptic. After all, the protestant reformation and the modern missionary movement (of which we are benefactors) received its direction and impetus from these clear understandings of grace. They gave form and zeal to the preaching of John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, William Carey, John Ryland, Henry Martyn, Robert Moffat, David Livingstone, John G. Paton, John R. Mott, and many others. England, Scotland, and America experienced some of the most amazing revivals the world has ever seen through the preaching of “this” gospel of grace. Are there some rogues in the group? Are there some who make idols out of men and turn theology into a blood sport? Absolutely. That’s why it’s so important for us to understand how broken we really are and how utterly dependent we are upon Christ, daily.

Your soul’s eternal well-wisher

B8,

Clearly Finney upholds Arminianism.  So maybe we can read a whole lot into his use of 'consent'.  If I were to label myself, I would probably fall more in the Calvinism camp than the Arminianism camp.  Therefore, I do not want to anyone to be confused.  I am not defending the views of Arminius or Finney (or Calvin for that matter).  What troubles me is the quick jump that Finney was "antiChristian, antiBible" and you probably at some point called him a heretic (a word you throw around whenever you get the chance).

By labeling Arminius and Finney heretics, you now ostracise the whole Methodist community (and many Baptist communities).  Since I mentioned it, it is interesting to learn that Finney did not develop some new denomination or claim some prophetic leadership, which was very common during this time period.  Do people call themselves Finneyists?  I cannot find any.  It was the Baptists and Methodists who swelled in number following his revivals--some Presbyterian communities as well.

The writer to the Hebrews (quoting Psalms) says: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion."  Jesus speaking to John and recorded in Revelation says: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock.  If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me."

Interestingly, Spurgeon wrote, "I'll win as many as I can to Christ, and let the judgment seat of Christ sort the consequences.  If God branded every elect person on his back, I would go around lifting shirttails to find out who was elect so I could win them to Christ."  I believe Finney passionately wanted to see the lost saved, as did Spurgeon.  And while his theology may not be perfect, I find it hard to call him antiChristian and say his movement led to idolatry.

It appears that a lot of good things came out of the revival movement.  Take for example this specific situation.

In 1851, Fanny Crosby, 31, attended a revival service at John Street Methodist Church in New York.  What a triple whammy!  The impact of Arminius, Wesley and Finney meet.  'After a prayer was offered,' she recalled, 'they began to sing the grand old consecration hymn, "Alas! and Did My Savior Bleed"' by Isaac Watts--a Nonconformist.  She goes on to say, 'and when they reached the third line of the fifth stanza, "Here, Lord, I give myself away," my very soul was flooded with celestial light.'

No doubt Fanny went forward to publicly profess her salvation.  Heaven forbid an invitation was given after the sermon (something Finney made popular).

Later Fanny would be come one of the greatest hymn writers.  Take for example this hymn:

"To God be the glory great things He hath done!

So loved He the world that He gave us His Son,

Who yielded His life an atonement for sin

And opened the lifegate that all may go in.

O perfect redemption, the purchase of blood

To every believer, the promise of God.

The vilest offender who truly believes,

That moment from Jesus a pardon receives.

Great things He hath taught us; great things He hath done,

And great our rejoicing thro Jesus, the Son.

But purer and higher and greater will be

Our wonder, our transport, when Jesus we see.

Praise the Lord!  Praise the Lord!

Let the earth hear His voice!

Praise the Lord!  Praise the Lord!

Let the people rejoice!

O come to the Father thro' Jesus, the Son,

And give Him the glory--great things He hath done!"

Note some of the theological issues she addresses so beautifully.

1. God receives all the glory for what He has done (not what we have done)

2. All may enter a new life in Christ

3. The vilest sinner can be pardoned when he receives Jesus