John Wesley and Charles Finney

[agedman]

I once heard a preacher who waxed eloquent on the damage these two did that have resulted in the abundant deceptions of the modern church.

He pointed to the schemes of heightening sensationalist oriented music and sermons, that presented little if not highly watered down presentations of the Scriptures. The doctrinal error prone to those who follow their example and the moral excesses that plague those are who hold similar views in which they are more apt to fail.

He also pointed to the typical Baptist call for a response (invitation time) as having come directly from Finney.

He stated that the sober solemn worship was lost in the froth and fluff of the revival type services typical of what would pass for a Sunday sermon.

He stated that these were all tools used to delude the church into a form of worship but was in actuality an affront to the Holy God of Heaven.


BTW, this preacher is no intellectual midget mind, but has standing as a scholar and more than one published writing.

I was wondering what the folks on the forum might consider of support or objection to the thinking of this preacher.

OOOPPPSSS wrong Wesley!!!!!!!!!! - it was John not Charles. John is credited with much of the modernistic trends of the church of this day. Charles actually had strong disagreement with some of John's thinking.

 

[InTheLight]

I would consider finding copies of their sermons on line, read them, and judge for yourself.

 

[agedman]

I would consider finding copies of their sermons on line, read them, and judge for yourself.

I see Phil Johnson posted this on his sight with documentation.

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

 

[Cypress]

Both were fine men against whom my commitment to sharing the gospel fails miserably. What harm do you think they did? I responded to a very Finney like invitation at what is one of the strongest Baptist churches in the sbc 35 years ago and am eternally greatful for the service of the man who preached the gospel that day. Nice music, genuine gospel, earnest pleading, resulti: genuine conviction and repentance to faith on my part. No complaints here, only gratitude and respect. The genuine love of those men is a wonderful reflection of Gods love.:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[agedman]

I am most thankful for your salvation, and the experience you had 35 years ago. I would not for a moment consider the work of the Holy Spirit is not effectual anytime the Word is declared.

The link declares that Finney was a heretic and further that the influence he had has brought damage to the church?

I know that Wesley embraced the Moravian thinking and they are part of the world counsel of churches as is the Methodists.

What I wanted was for the forum folks to show that: Yes, these men were a hindrance to the cause of Christ, or No, they were not, and to give some explanation as to how they support their opinions.

Personally, I am not calling either anything at this time, just gathering some forum thinking and the assessment of the impact on the modern church.

 

[drfuss]

I think the methods that Finney and Wesley used to bring people to Christ was effective in their time. If they were here today, I suspect some of their methods would be different. Consider how some of the methods and standards have changed in Baptist churches over the past 50 years.

For example, most of the ministers of the Reformation were very anti-Jewish; if they were alive today, they would not be.

They were effective in getting the down and outers to Christ. We need such a revival today.

 

[padredurand]

I know that Wesley embraced the Moravian thinking and they are part of the world counsel of churches as is the Methodists.

What I wanted was for the forum folks to show that: Yes, these men were a hindrance to the cause of Christ, or No, they were not, and to give some explanation as to how they support their opinions.

1. The World Council of Churches didn't exist in Wesley's 1800Th Century. You can't compare 1700s Methodism with 21st Century methodist. Two entirely different creatures.

2. John Wesley was never a Methodist. He was ordained an Anglican priest and died as such.

3. Wesley traveled over 250,000 miles, on horseback preaching anywhere two or more would gather.

How would I measure the man for the cause of Christ? Does it matter what any of us think? The true results of his work will be known only in Heaven. I am sure that there will be the usual assortment of "He taught a false hope, a different Jesus, a heretical doctrine, etc, etc." Come to think of it I can't remember a preacher mentioned on BB that hasn't received the same appraisal. Nonetheless, in spite of be raised up IFB, I was led to the Lord by a Methodist preacher ( a man who would become my FIL many years later). I attended a Methodist seminary and served in the UMC for 13 years. I've since returned closer to my roots but not without having learned much about the man and his ministry. Personally, i would say his work was fruitful and useful for the kingdom.

 

[agedman]

I think the methods that Finney and Wesley used to bring people to Christ was effective in their time. If they were here today, I suspect some of their methods would be different. Consider how some of the methods and standards have changed in Baptist churches over the past 50 years.

For example, most of the ministers of the Reformation were very anti-Jewish; if they were alive today, they would not be.

They were effective in getting the down and outers to Christ. We need such a revival today.

I agree with the changing methods.

 

[freeatlast]

I once heard a preacher who waxed eloquent on the damage these two did that have resulted in the abundant deceptions of the modern church.

He pointed to the schemes of heightening sensationalist oriented music and sermons, that presented little if not highly watered down presentations of the Scriptures. The doctrinal error prone to those who follow their example and the moral excesses that plague those are who hold similar views in which they are more apt to fail.

He also pointed to the typical Baptist call for a response (invitation time) as having come directly from Finney.

He stated that the sober solemn worship was lost in the froth and fluff of the revival type services typical of what would pass for a Sunday sermon.

He stated that these were all tools used to delude the church into a form of worship but was in actuality an affront to the Holy God of Heaven.


BTW, this preacher is no intellectual midget mind, but has standing as a scholar and more than one published writing.

I was wondering what the folks on the forum might consider of support or objection to the thinking of this preacher.

OOOPPPSSS wrong Wesley!!!!!!!!!! - it was John not Charles. John is credited with much of the modernistic trends of the church of this day. Charles actually had strong disagreement with some of John's thinking.

If I can do half as much damage as those two did with as many converts as they had then I hope to do a lot of damage also.

 

[agedman]

1. The World Council of Churches didn't exist in Wesley's 1800Th Century. You can't compare 1700s Methodism with 21st Century methodist. Two entirely different creatures.

2. John Wesley was never a Methodist. He was ordained an Anglican priest and died as such.

3. Wesley traveled over 250,000 miles, on horseback preaching anywhere two or more would gather.

How would I measure the man for the cause of Christ? Does it matter what any of us think? The true results of his work will be known only in Heaven. I am sure that there will be the usual assortment of "He taught a false hope, a different Jesus, a heretical doctrine, etc, etc." Come to think of it I can't remember a preacher mentioned on BB that hasn't received the same appraisal. Nonetheless, in spite of be raised up IFB, I was led to the Lord by a Methodist preacher ( a man who would become my FIL many years later). I attended a Methodist seminary and served in the UMC for 13 years. I've since returned closer to my roots but not without having learned much about the man and his ministry. Personally, i would say his work was fruitful and useful for the kingdom.

No doubt the man accomplished a great deal. His zeal is a rare quality, especially in this modern age.

I am not in a position of being critical, but I would caution that just because a person accomplishes a great deal doesn't mean they are right.

An example would be Joseph Smith. Not that I am aligning Wesley with that sort, but just to show that numbers, and results do not equate to Godliness.

 

[freeatlast]

No doubt the man accomplished a great deal. His zeal is a rare quality, especially in this modern age.

I am not in a position of being critical, but I would caution that just because a person accomplishes a great deal doesn't mean they are right.

An example would be Joseph Smith. Not that I am aligning Wesley with that sort, but just to show that numbers, and results do not equate to Godliness.

Now isn't that interesting! If winning people to Christ is not right then what would you call it?

By the way Joseph Smith did not accomplish anything in regards to the gospel.

 

[agedman]

Now isn't that interesting! If winning people to Christ is not right then what would you call it?

By the way Joseph Smith did not accomplish anything in regards to the gospel.

Winning people to Christ. Hmmm

Now that is a term that just might need a bit of clarification.

How does a person "win someone to Christ" when that person doing the winning has absolutely no control over the salvation at any point in the process?

BTW, Joseph Smith clarified the gospel and corrected all errors that man had made in the Old and New Testament. That is what is believed. And the resulting numbers must certainly show that God approves and is blessing the work.

 

[freeatlast]

Winning people to Christ. Hmmm

Now that is a term that just might need a bit of clarification.

How does a person "win someone to Christ" when that person doing the winning has absolutely no control over the salvation at any point in the process?

BTW, Joseph Smith clarified the gospel and corrected all errors that man had made in the Old and New Testament. That is what is believed. And the resulting numbers must certainly show that God approves and is blessing the work.

Your true colors are coming out. Joseph Smith was a false prophet and a liar.

 

[padredurand]

Winning people to Christ. Hmmm

Now that is a term that just might need a bit of clarification.

How does a person "win someone to Christ" when that person doing the winning has absolutely no control over the salvation at any point in the process?

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
Romans 10:14-15 KJV

I believe that most folks could figure out that 'winning someone to Christ' is just a figure of speech. Even the most ardent Arminian knows that. Preach the Gospel. Bring glad tidings. God does everything else. Wesley believed that.

 

[Iconoclast]

Agedman;
you said;
[QUOTEBTW, Joseph Smith clarified the gospel and corrected all errors that man had made in the Old and New Testament. That is what is believed. And the resulting numbers must certainly show that God approves and is blessing the work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
][/QUOTE


What did you mean by this? was this a joke? I might be tired, or I am mis reading this.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Shutting this thread down and verifying we don't have a major problem with a poster.

And now RE-OPENING THE THREAD.

Be careful, please, with sarcasm, satire or other grammar - it is hard to see when a false doctrine is being pushed (aka mormonism) and when it is being used as a jab against the finneyesque types and numbers crowd.

I am slow to anger, but when I get rile up . . WATCH OUT!!!

 

[agedman]

Let me be the first to post, again.

I wrote, "Joseph Smith clarified the gospel and corrected all errors that man had made in the Old and New Testament. That is what is believed. And the resulting numbers must certainly show that God approves and is blessing the work."

I was not making a statement of agreement. I hope that any who read what this agedman has written would not attempt to align me with the false prophet and his (as well as other supporter's) teaching. The believer has no association with such and should not - I certainly don't.

The the attempt was to use sarcasm to show the fallacy of thinking that, because a person has persuasive powers and exuberance in a work which impacts a great number of lives which in turn results in a large following, that man or work is approved and blessed by the God in heaven.

Excess in the IFB world has been allowed and excused by the pew sitters. In my opinion, most of the readers in this forum have first hand knowledge or at the least read the record of some "great man of God" who aggressively garnered political support and stayed at a leadership position though no longer qualified because people placed results in numbers above the authority of God's word.

The cry of numbers as validation of God's blessing is causing thousands to swarm to the modern church that offers little if any sound doctrinal teaching.

The question of this thread was the historical evidence that Finney and Wesley could have been horribly misguided. Could it be that in their exuberance and the thinking that the numbers indicated God's blessings were actually part of the deceitfulness of the enemy?

 

[freeatlast]

Let me be the first to post, again.

I wrote, "Joseph Smith clarified the gospel and corrected all errors that man had made in the Old and New Testament. That is what is believed. And the resulting numbers must certainly show that God approves and is blessing the work."

I was not making a statement of agreement. I hope that any who read what this agedman has written would not attempt to align me with the false prophet and his (as well as other supporter's) teaching. The believer has no association with such and should not - I certainly don't.

The the attempt was to use sarcasm to show the fallacy of thinking that, because a person has persuasive powers and exuberance in a work which impacts a great number of lives which in turn results in a large following, that man or work is approved and blessed by the God in heaven.

Excess in the IFB world has been allowed and excused by the pew sitters. In my opinion, most of the readers in this forum have first hand knowledge or at the least read the record of some "great man of God" who aggressively garnered political support and stayed at a leadership position though no longer qualified because people placed results in numbers above the authority of God's word.

The cry of numbers as validation of God's blessing is causing thousands to swarm to the modern church that offers little if any sound doctrinal teaching.

The question of this thread was the historical evidence that Finney and Wesley could have been horribly misguided. Could it be that in their exuberance and the thinking that the numbers indicated God's blessings were actually part of the deceitfulness of the enemy?

Thank you for the correction. To answer your question then could not the same supposition be applied to the Baptist and its founders?

 

[agedman]

Thank you for the correction. To answer your question then could not the same supposition be applied to the Baptist and its founders?

Jonathan Edwards is credited with starting the first Baptist church in America. He broke from the established church because of doctrinal issues. Was he influential? No doubt, but he would no doubt have had great issues with the presentation and doctrine of both Finney and Wesley.

I am uncertain just how great an impact the Baptists have ever had.

For instance, in colonial Williamsburg, the established church (where Thomas Jefferson, and other notables that lived in the area had membership) highly persecuted the very small Baptist congregation.

 

[freeatlast]

Jonathan Edwards is credited with starting the first Baptist church in America. He broke from the established church because of doctrinal issues. Was he influential? No doubt, but he would no doubt have had great issues with the presentation and doctrine of both Finney and Wesley.

I am uncertain just how great an impact the Baptists have ever had.

For instance, in colonial Williamsburg, the established church (where Thomas Jefferson, and other notables that lived in the area had membership) highly persecuted the very small Baptist congregation.

But my question is if we suggest that Finney and Wesley may have been "horribly misguided" then should we not also hold the same for those who started the Baptist church? What is the criteria that decides that Finney and Wesley were horribly misguided and not the Baptists?