Is the salvation doctrine Pelagianism a Heresy, and was Charles Finney guilty of teaching it?

[JesusFan]

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.

As to perseverance, you know how much free gracers and others argue that. The Calvinist Puritan faction freely says that a true saint will and thus must continue in the faith or they are not saved or at least prove they never were. Free will Baptists and most Arminians have various takes on how they handle lack of holiness and willful sin in a professing believer so Finney fits in somewhere.

I'm not saying he's good to study, just that it may not be as bad as you have been told and that some people seem to like him.

see post #19. good overview of his many errors

 

[DaveXR650]

Don't think for a minute that I am recommending you go to Finney to learn theology. My only point is that being older, I have noticed a new tendency to bash Finney, which is a little disturbing because you wonder what has changed. This is not unique. Look at Richard Baxter, highly thought of for his work on being a pastor, yet considered by many Calvinists to be a heretic in his theology on justification. Same with Wesley. Look at what Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones has to say about him. He gives him great praise, even arguing that Calvinism without some influence from Methodism is prone to coldness and deficiency, yet says his theology is a mix of error.

My only suggestion would be to not think you have an obligation to scorn him and disassociate with anyone who mentions him in a favorable manner.

 

[DaveXR650]

Did not know Jesus had any sins to die for of his own though, and to deny penal substitionary atonement is to deny Pauline Justification

I don't have his theology book, and probably won't try to obtain it, but you have to understand that his problem with substitutionary atonement was with the idea that Jesus died to provide atonement for the actual specific sins of people, with the total focus being on the sins themselves as separated from the people who committed them.

His concern, as he mentioned in the little book I do have, was that looking at the atonement this way leads to the idea that Jesus comes before God demanding that in the name of justice, the sins of the elect be forgiven because they have each been already paid for. His view was not that the punishment for our sins did not fall on Jesus instead of us (he specifically said that they did) but the vision he had of how this worked was that God loves us already and wants to forgive but for the sake of justice cannot do so without the atonement being made by Christ. So Christ comes before the mercy seat and obtains the mercy that the Father desires to give and now can freely give and yet remain just before all the universe.

Is that deficient? I think it is, in that there is an aspect of God's wrath toward sinners that the above does not adequately explain, but I wonder if at the time, there was not a misuse of the atonement by Calvinists to view their sins as being taken care of and thus giving them an appearance of a certain presumptuousness in regarding their sin as gone and taking their need for living a Christian life lightly. Also, were they minimizing the need for active attention to repentance and the need to appeal to God for forgiveness rather than assume it was previously given at the atonement?

I don't know exactly what the state of Christianity was at the time Finney was preaching but if it was anything like the state of modern mainline churches nowadays I can see why he thought they needed to be shaken up. Many of these churches have fine doctrinal statements of faith yet are full of spiritually dead people. His emphasis that salvation involves a personal interaction with Jesus rather than just an acknowledgement of certain theological propositions should not be dismissed.

 

[JesusFan]

I don't have his theology book, and probably won't try to obtain it, but you have to understand that his problem with substitutionary atonement was with the idea that Jesus died to provide atonement for the actual specific sins of people, with the total focus being on the sins themselves as separated from the people who committed them.

His concern, as he mentioned in the little book I do have, was that looking at the atonement this way leads to the idea that Jesus comes before God demanding that in the name of justice, the sins of the elect be forgiven because they have each been already paid for. His view was not that the punishment for our sins did not fall on Jesus instead of us (he specifically said that they did) but the vision he had of how this worked was that God loves us already and wants to forgive but for the sake of justice cannot do so without the atonement being made by Christ. So Christ comes before the mercy seat and obtains the mercy that the Father desires to give and now can freely give and yet remain just before all the universe.

Is that deficient? I think it is, in that there is an aspect of God's wrath toward sinners that the above does not adequately explain, but I wonder if at the time, there was not a misuse of the atonement by Calvinists to view their sins as being taken care of and thus giving them an appearance of a certain presumptuousness in regarding their sin as gone and taking their need for living a Christian life lightly. Also, were they minimizing the need for active attention to repentance and the need to appeal to God for forgiveness rather than assume it was previously given at the atonement?

I don't know exactly what the state of Christianity was at the time Finney was preaching but if it was anything like the state of modern mainline churches nowadays I can see why he thought they needed to be shaken up. Many of these churches have fine doctrinal statements of faith yet are full of spiritually dead people. His emphasis that salvation involves a personal interaction with Jesus rather than just an acknowledgement of certain theological propositions should not be dismissed.

The big problem on him is that he was openly teaching and preaching a view that was exposed and condemned as being heresy. not that he was not saved, but his theology per salvation proper was very suspect and deficit

 

[DaveXR650]

The big problem on him is that he was openly teaching and preaching a view that was exposed and condemned as being heresy. not that he was not saved, but his theology per salvation proper was very suspect and deficit

His explanations of theology certainly look odd to us nowadays but when was the last time you encountered a Universalist, or a real live Pelagian for that matter. I don't know enough about why he did things like he did but I just point out that some guys who I respect seem to have felt that he did some good in his time. I would not use him as a source for theology but the same goes for Wesley or Baxter. But I would still list them among the good guys of history. And if you hear someone quote him don't recoil in horror.

 

[JesusFan]

His explanations of theology certainly look odd to us nowadays but when was the last time you encountered a Universalist, or a real live Pelagian for that matter. I don't know enough about why he did things like he did but I just point out that some guys who I respect seem to have felt that he did some good in his time. I would not use him as a source for theology but the same goes for Wesley or Baxter. But I would still list them among the good guys of history. And if you hear someone quote him don't recoil in horror.

Even though we cannot come to a consensus it seems on this board if Finney was an actual heretic, hopefully we all can agree he preach and taught in many ways some very bad doctrine and theology

 

[DaveXR650]

Even though we cannot come to a consensus it seems on this board if Finney was an actual heretic, hopefully we all can agree he preach and taught in many ways some very bad doctrine and theology

For sure. But have you ever thought, as a Baptist, just how bad the doctrine of infant baptism is? What about the view that the Lord's supper is a spiritual means of grace? Have you ever seen a Presbyterian who is "on fire" for the Lord? The only one's I have seen are also raising chickens and home schooling with the idea that the superior students they turn out will one day rule the country due to their educational advantages. Reformed Baptists do the best job as far as I can tell on theology but you need to understand that these other camps don't accept us as truly "reformed". And most of the Primitive Baptists are somewhere else, off by themselves. So I wouldn't look too hard for consensus.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Did not know Jesus had any sins to die for of his own though, and to deny penal substitionary atonement is to deny Pauline Justification

Right.

Straight up Demonic.

 

[John of Japan]

As it does seem that he was a big expositor of that doctrine, and was not that teaching condemned as being heretical in nature, condemned by Both Calvinist and Armianists?

So why should we Baptists" people of the book" derive anything from what Finney stated or taught then?

I'd agree with his being condemned by Calvinists, but where do you find non-Calvinists condemning him? And where is the evidence of his Pelagianism? Your posts #1 & #11 do not give proof.

I just did a word search of "free will" in his systematic theology (https://www.spiritualarchive.org/books/SystematicTheology-Finney.pdf). It occurs 29 time, but I did not find Pelagianism. So where did you get that charge? I did see non-Calvinist descriptions of free will. Are you saying that anyone who believes in the free will of Man is Pelagian?? Even A. H. Strong had a (limited) view that Man has a free will (p. 510 in his Systematic Theology).

We are created in the image of God. God has freedom of the will. Why then do we not? No less a Calvinist theologian than Berkhof wrote, "It [the Bible--JoJ] clearly reveals that God has decreed the free acts of man, but also that the actors are none the less free and therefore responsible foer their acts" (Systematic Theology, p. 106).

Chafer also taught that Man has a will (Systematic Theology, vol. 1, pp. 240-241). Whether it is "free" or not (he didn't say that I can find), Man still has a will, and that means that we can make decisions. Do you deny that? Finney did not, and so far I'm with him, because you are not giving evidence that he was Pelagian (which went way too far about the human will).

 

[John of Japan]

The big problem on him is that he was openly teaching and preaching a view that was exposed and condemned as being heresy. not that he was not saved, but his theology per salvation proper was very suspect and deficit

In his own day, as far as I know, Finney was not condemned as being a heretic. Calvinist Presbyterians often cooperated with him. So no, he was not "openly teaching...heresy." Or maybe the theologians of the day were just dumb. What people condemned in Finney was his supposed embracing of emotionalism to bring people to Christ, which was a false charge.

He believed all the fundamental doctrines of the faith, and was a man of prayer who believed very deeply in the power of the Holy Spirit. "I laid great stress upon prayer as an indispensable condition of promoting the revival. The atonement of Jesus Christ, his divinity, his divine mission, his perfect life, his vicarious death, his resurrection, and repentance, faith, justification by faith, and all the kindred doctrines were discussed as thoroughly as I was able, and pressed home, and were manifestly made effective by the power of the Holy Spirit" (The Autobiography of Charlese G. Finney, condensed and edited by Helen Wessel, p. 66). Sounds like what I believe.

 

[JesusFan]

I'd agree with his being condemned by Calvinists, but where do you find non-Calvinists condemning him? And where is the evidence of his Pelagianism? Your posts #1 & #11 do not give proof.

I just did a word search of "free will" in his systematic theology (https://www.spiritualarchive.org/books/SystematicTheology-Finney.pdf). It occurs 29 time, but I did not find Pelagianism. So where did you get that charge? I did see non-Calvinist descriptions of free will. Are you saying that anyone who believes in the free will of Man is Pelagian?? Even A. H. Strong had a (limited) view that Man has a free will (p. 510 in his Systematic Theology).

We are created in the image of God. God has freedom of the will. Why then do we not? No less a Calvinist theologian than Berkhof wrote, "It [the Bible--JoJ] clearly reveals that God has decreed the free acts of man, but also that the actors are none the less free and therefore responsible foer their acts" (Systematic Theology, p. 106).

Chafer also taught that Man has a will (Systematic Theology, vol. 1, pp. 240-241). Whether it is "free" or not (he didn't say that I can find), Man still has a will, and that means that we can make decisions. Do you deny that? Finney did not, and so far I'm with him, because you are not giving evidence that he was Pelagian (which went way too far about the human will).

We Calvinists do still confirm that even fallen humanity still possesses a degree of free will remaining after the fall, but no longer in an absolute sense any more, as all of us are limited by the sin nature from the Fall, so there are restrictions placed upon us now, as while still free to choose decisions, not all decisions can anymore be desired by us. Both cals and Arms affirm fallen sinners having a sin nature, and must have the enabling of and by the Holy Spirit to choose Jesus as lord, but Finney affirmed all lost sinners in and by themselves can still choose to accept Jesus to get now saved. Denied realty of original sin and us now being spiritually dead in our sins.

 

[JesusFan]

In his own day, as far as I know, Finney was not condemned as being a heretic. Calvinist Presbyterians often cooperated with him. So no, he was not "openly teaching...heresy." Or maybe the theologians of the day were just dumb. What people condemned in Finney was his supposed embracing of emotionalism to bring people to Christ, which was a false charge.

He believed all the fundamental doctrines of the faith, and was a man of prayer who believed very deeply in the power of the Holy Spirit. "I laid great stress upon prayer as an indispensable condition of promoting the revival. The atonement of Jesus Christ, his divinity, his divine mission, his perfect life, his vicarious death, his resurrection, and repentance, faith, justification by faith, and all the kindred doctrines were discussed as thoroughly as I was able, and pressed home, and were manifestly made effective by the power of the Holy Spirit" (The Autobiography of Charlese G. Finney, condensed and edited by Helen Wessel, p. 66). Sounds like what I believe.

His salvation theology though brought easy believes front and center into protestant Christianity, as that infamous alter call and just confess/profess Jesus now was enough to save you/ regardless if there was any proof or evidence of having now been saved

 

[John of Japan]

His salvation theology though brought easy believes front and center into protestant Christianity,

Finney did not teach "easy believism," at least in the mold of the "Grace Evangelical Society." I'd like quotes from Finney proving that he believed in some kind of "easy believism." Can you provide them, or are you just charging heresy from hearsay?

as that infamous alter call and just confess/profess Jesus now was enough to save you/ regardless if there was any proof or evidence of having now been saved

Well, first of all, the "altar call" was invented by Jesus. He said in Matt. 11:28, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." We had this passage on our church sign in Yokohama, and one day a truck driver called me and wanted to talk. He was soon saved, was baptized and joined a church in the north of Tokyo, finding his wife there and serving God faithfully. People get saved when you invite them to Christ.

Jesus even commanded us to invite people to Him in Rev. 22:17, "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." The "altar call" is completely biblical.

Secondly, Finney did not invent the altar call (correct spelling). And he certainly did not tell people that coming forward would save you. Streett documents the fact that in the 12th century Bernard of Clairvaux would ask for a show of hands after his messages." R. Alan Streett The Effective Invitation. Revell, 1984. Streett also talks about the preaching of Patrick of Ireland and others.

Also, Calvinists were the first to use it in America. Baptist historian McBeth said, "The Separates apparently helped popularize what is now known as the 'evangelistic invitation.'" He then quotes Robert I. Devin (A History of Grassy Creek Baptist Church, p. 69): "At the close of the sermon, the minister would come down from the pulpit and while singing a suitable hymn would go around among the brethren shaking hands. The hymn being sung, he would then extend an invitation to such persons as felt themselves poor guilty sinners, and were anxiously inquiring the way of salvation, to come forward and kneel near the stand." McBeth then writes, "The separates thus devised a method of encouraging on-the-spot religious decisions, to the singing of a hymn, well before the revivals of Charles G. Finney, who is often credited with inventing the invitation." H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 231.

 

[John of Japan]

We Calvinists do still confirm that even fallen humanity still possesses a degree of free will remaining after the fall, but no longer in an absolute sense any more, as all of us are limited by the sin nature from the Fall, so there are restrictions placed upon us now, as while still free to choose decisions, not all decisions can anymore be desired by us. Both cals and Arms affirm fallen sinners having a sin nature, and must have the enabling of and by the Holy Spirit to choose Jesus as lord, but Finney affirmed all lost sinners in and by themselves can still choose to accept Jesus to get now saved. Denied realty of original sin and us now being spiritually dead in our sins.

I deny that Finney taught this. Prove it.

All through Finney's works are statements of the power of the Holy Spirit in salvation, both in the preacher/witness and in the regeneration of the sinner. Have you actually read any of his works? Where are you getting this stuff??

Here is a quote from Finney proving what I say: "It would probably not be possible for one who had never witnessed such a scene to realize what force the truth sometimes has under the power of the Holy Spirit" (The Autobiography of Charles G. Finney, condensed by Helen Wessel, p. 115). I could give many more similar quotes from Finney himself (not his enemies, not his critics).

 

[John of Japan]

Concerning how the NT church did the invitation (altar call), look at Peter's words in Acts 2:38-42--"38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."

If that isn't an evangelistic invitation, I don't know what is. Sure, no organs were playing, but it was an invitation for folks to trust Christ right then and there. Meanwhile, the other disciples, the "personal workers," were going through the crowd speaking to folks in their own language and exhorting them to trust Christ.

 

[JesusFan]

Concerning how the NT church did the invitation (altar call), look at Peter's words in Acts 2:38-42--"38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."

If that isn't an evangelistic invitation, I don't know what is. Sure, no organs were playing, but it was an invitation for folks to trust Christ right then and there. Meanwhile, the other disciples, the "personal workers," were going through the crowd speaking to folks in their own language and exhorting them to trust Christ.

The Churches in Acts also would have got them processed into discipleship and sound doctrine and teachings, so while one can really be saved at the "alter ca;;", would say that the church cannot afford to just let them look at that as a 1 time experience that punched their ticket to heaven, as think many had an emotional response to the message, but they never really got truly saved, That is why discipleship and sound teaching so important as follow-up.

 

[JesusFan]

I deny that Finney taught this. Prove it.

All through Finney's works are statements of the power of the Holy Spirit in salvation, both in the preacher/witness and in the regeneration of the sinner. Have you actually read any of his works? Where are you getting this stuff??

Here is a quote from Finney proving what I say: "It would probably not be possible for one who had never witnessed such a scene to realize what force the truth sometimes has under the power of the Holy Spirit" (The Autobiography of Charles G. Finney, condensed by Helen Wessel, p. 115). I could give many more similar quotes from Finney himself (not his enemies, not his critics).

From Charles Finney own words

How Charles Finney (and other Overly Emotional Preachers) Made It Difficult to Preach the Gospel - 9Marks

How can a church in a secular setting work toward a culture where discussing God’s wrath and substitutionary atonement isn’t frowned upon but celebrated?

www.9marks.org

 

[John of Japan]

From Charles Finney own words

How Charles Finney (and other Overly Emotional Preachers) Made It Difficult to Preach the Gospel - 9Marks

How can a church in a secular setting work toward a culture where discussing God’s wrath and substitutionary atonement isn’t frowned upon but celebrated?

www.9marks.org

Seriously? First, you go to a secondary source, not Finney. Then that secondary source supposedly quotes Finney about original sin, but it's out of context.

I'm pretty sure the author doesn't know Finney at all because, (a) he calls Finney an "overly emotional preacher" with no source for that. Then (b) he totally torches Finney's supposed method of revival with no sources. (c) He totally misses Finney's pneumatology. (I gave a clear quote about this just a couple of posts ago, and you apparently missed it.)

If I were grading an essay in my Bible Doctrines class that did this, I would probably give it an F.

 

[John of Japan]

The Churches in Acts also would have got them processed into discipleship and sound doctrine and teachings, so while one can really be saved at the "alter ca;;", would say that the church cannot afford to just let them look at that as a 1 time experience that punched their ticket to heaven, as think many had an emotional response to the message, but they never really got truly saved, That is why discipleship and sound teaching so important as follow-up.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here. Do you now agree with the altar call or not? Are you then accusing those who believe in an altar call of not doing discipleship? Please clarify.

 

[JesusFan]

Seriously? First, you go to a secondary source, not Finney. Then that secondary source supposedly quotes Finney about original sin, but it's out of context.

I'm pretty sure the author doesn't know Finney at all because, (a) he calls Finney an "overly emotional preacher" with no source for that. Then (b) he totally torches Finney's supposed method of revival with no sources. (c) He totally misses Finney's pneumatology. (I gave a clear quote about this just a couple of posts ago, and you apparently missed it.)

If I were grading an essay in my Bible Doctrines class that did this, I would probably give it an F.

I do not know of any reputable theologian though who did not see Finney as holding to the teachings of Pelagius , which has been condemned as heresy by both Calvinists and Armianions though