Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Have you read Finney? Or just what people say about him.
yes and Yes
Then give an example of what he said that is wrong. I know Finney was somewhat well thought of by guys like G. Campbell Morgan, who was the the predecessor of Martyn Lloyd Jones at West Minster and if I remember he had a section devoted to him at the museum at Liberty University. He certainly believed sin is a voluntary act committed by a person against God's law, as @Van said above. And he certainly emphasized the importance of the will in turning to Christ and avoiding sin. I know a lot of Calvinists hate him and a lot of fundamentalists seem to like him. I've got one of his books, somewhere, so I might be able to look up a specific complaint but that's about all I know.
If? Did he or not? Finney's Systematic Theology PDF.
Key points of Finney's view on salvation:
Clear explanation of Finney sotierology, and how it is being taught by many today in churches
Thanks, @JesusFan. I've never looked real close at this but I am interested because I know he is held in high regard by the branch of Christianity I come from, right or wrong. But at least now you have a thread to go on.
On this site you see the extreme of the other side also, that even saying that simple faith is a condition for salvation minimizes God's grace. I agree that demanding immediate decision is a good way to get false conversions. But I think that just like New Testament preaching to Jews, well versed in the scripture, who have enough background, there is a time where a decision to accept or reject is clearly indicated. Finney was preaching to a lot of church going Presbyterians, who having a good knowledge of scripture, were not saved. He needed to give them a wake up call. He also dealt with "Deists" who were a popular group at that time, and still are even though they don't use the name.
Except that he held that fallen sinners still had the capacity within themselves to make a "full free will" decision to receive or reject Jesus, so really did not need the work of the Holy Spirit as Calvinists and non calls have always affirmed.
Finney would not agree with Pauline justification of "saved by grace alone received thru faith alone", as He saw it as lost sinners cam by themselves choose Jesus to save the, but had to keep cooperating with being righteous in order to maintain true salvation
Finney has a couple of chapters of his little book being about the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation. He also warns that persistent rejection of this drawing can result in a withdrawing of the Spirit and he does say that if that happens we shouldn't even pray for such an individual as they are beyond hope. He's not very specific in that book about theology but that would indicate to me that he did not believe the work of the Holy Spirit was unnecessary.
ON AND ON AND ON. FINNY TWISSSSTED EVERYTHING, LIKE WESCOTT AND HORT.
THE ANSWER: BAPTIST PEOPLE, OTHER RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, AND ALL PEOPLE
Did not know Jesus had any sins to die for of his own though, and to deny penal substitionary atonement is to deny Pauline JustificationExcerpt from:
The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney
"Finney believed that human beings were capable of choosing whether they would be corrupt by nature or redeemed, referring to original sin as an "anti-scriptural and nonsensical dogma" (p.179). In clear terms, Finney denied the notion that human beings possess a sinful nature (ibid.).
by Michael Horton.
"Therefore, if Adam leads us into sin, not by our inheriting his guilt and corruption, but by following his poor example, this leads logically to the view of Christ, the Second Adam, as saving by example. This is precisely where Finney takes it, in his explanation of the atonement.
"The first thing we must note about the atonement, Finney says, is that Christ could not have died for anyone else’s sins than his own. His obedience to the law and his perfect righteousness were sufficient to save him, but could not legally be accepted on behalf of others.
"That Finney’s whole theology is driven by a passion for moral improvement is seen on this very point: "If he [Christ] had obeyed the Law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non* of our salvation" (p.206)?
"In other words, why would God insist that we save ourselves by our own obedience if Christ’s work was sufficient?
"The reader should recall the words of St. Paul in this regard,
"I do not nullify the Grace of God’,
for if Justification comes through the Law, then Christ died for nothing."
"It would seem that Finney’s reply is one of agreement.
The difference is, he has no difficulty believing both of those Premises.
Alan's Note: By Finny "believing both" means he believed lies anytime he wanted to.
"That is not entirely fair, of course, because Finney did believe that Christ died for something—not for someone, but for something.
Alan's Note: "not entirely fair" better mean more like,
let's entirely explore the whole lie.
"In other words, He died for a Purpose, but not for people. The Purpose of that death was to reassert God’s Moral Government and to lead us to Eternal Life by example, as Adam’s example excited us to sin.
Alan's Note: The defines THE ENTIRE LOST WORLD of RELIGION WITHOUT GOD.
Why did Christ die? God knew that
"The atonement would present to creatures the highest possible motives to virtue.
"Example is the highest moral influence that can be exerted ... If the benevolence manifested in the atonement does not subdue the selfishness of sinners, their case is hopeless" (p.209).
"Therefore, we are not helpless sinners who need to,’ be redeemed, but wayward sinners who need a demonstration of selflessness so moving that we will be excited to leave off selfishness.
"Not only did Finney believe that the "moral influence" theory of the atonement was the chief way of understanding the cross; he explicitly denied the substitutionary atonement, which
ON AND ON AND ON. FINNY TWISSSSTED EVERYTHING, LIKE WESCOTT AND HORT.
* This fake, phony, and False, SATANIC QUESTION, is purely heretical and deceptive,
WHILE THROWING INTO IT A LITTLE DEAD LANGUAGE LATIN CURVE BALL.
That is how a person may fall prey to being touched by a smooth criminal, an enemy of God, God's people, and the lost. Charles Finny was a Professional Quack.
His diabolically sinister, arrogant false teaching:
"If he [Christ] had obeyed the Law as our substitute,
then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon
as a sine qua non* of our salvation"
Our own return to personal obedience being insisted upon
as a sine qua non* is ABSOLUTELY NOT AN essential condition;
AND ABSOLUTELY NOT a thing absolutely necessary of our salvation.
Anyone Can PLAY INTO THE HANDS OF SATAN AND PRETEND THAT,
"OH, THERE MUST BE SOMETHING TO THAT THAT MAKES IT TRUE",
When facts are "personal obdience" will and certainly should be manifest in the life of a soul that is genuinely Saved, those who may not live right for the Lord, who may for example, in the extreme, commit the sin unto death, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WEREN'T SAVED, and conversely, ALL THE "PERSONAL OBEDIENT LAW KEEPING" FINNY WAS CALLING FOR, DIDN'T CAUSE ANYONE TO GAIN THEIR OWN SALVATION.
noun: sine qua non; plural noun: sine qua nons
- an essential condition; a thing that is absolutely necessary.
...
THE ANSWER: BAPTIST PEOPLE, OTHER RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, AND ALL PEOPLE
SUFFER FROM THE DAMNABLE AFFLICTION WHERE THEY TRUELY BELIEVE:
"JUST BECAUSE SATAN LIED TO JESUS CHRIST
DOESN'T MEAN SATAN CAN TRY TO LIE TO ME."
What do think about that, for some preaching?
