• 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!

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

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
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.
great Questions just stating that while the Alter call is valid ti be done in a church service, there must also big a program to get the professor into discipleship, cell group, accounability partnerships etc, as concerned that many people are holding to an emotional response to that call as nw being set for heave, same way many are deceived into thinking water infant baptism saved them also. person in both cases need to confirm and make sure of the calling and position in Christ now , as think have read that vast majority of those who responded at a Billy graham Crusade never wehn followed up on, were in any church later on, nor walking with Christ either
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
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.
Here is a view from a real scholar, presented to Evangelical Armminians society from one who is non Cal, sympathic to Finney some ways, yet levels Him as having deficit theology

 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
great Questions just stating that while the Alter call is valid ti be done in a church service, there must also big a program to get the professor into discipleship, cell group, accounability partnerships etc, as concerned that many people are holding to an emotional response to that call as nw being set for heave, same way many are deceived into thinking water infant baptism saved them also. person in both cases need to confirm and make sure of the calling and position in Christ now , as think have read that vast majority of those who responded at a Billy graham Crusade never wehn followed up on, were in any church later on, nor walking with Christ either
Okay, good.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here is a view from a real scholar, presented to Evangelical Armminians society from one who is non Cal, sympathic to Finney some ways, yet levels Him as having deficit theology

Great! Thank you. I have said elsewhere on the BB that I have read Finney's Systematic Theology and thought it to be very poor. I do believe he was a great (meaning influential) revivalist, so I want him to be properly represented. We shouldn't lie about people, and we shouldn't accuse other believers of being liars or heretics without genuine, original source facts. So much has been said about Finney that is factually inaccurate, so that it's hard to sort it out simply by reading the Internet. (You know, the Internet isn't always right!!!)
 
Last edited:

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The charge that Finney did not hold to "original sin" is interesting. I have been looking in the downloaded PDF I have of his Sys. Theo. and am still trying to sort out that 19th century terminology. I am currently reading Theologians of the Baptist Tradition, ed. by Timothy George and David Dockery. This is an excellent book and I highly recommend it. It has everyone from Gill to Erickson.

In the chapter on Walter Thomas Conner, a Southern Baptist, he echoes what has been said of Finney about original sin: "Conner refused to accept either the Augustinian or the federal theories" (p. 209). But no one calls Conner a heretic! Original sin is originally a Calvinistic doctrine.... Calvinists seem to hate Finney categorically and sometimes without stated reason! Conner was called a "modified Calvinist" (p. 211), but late in life changed from "penal substitution" to "Christ as victor."

In the same book, none other than A. H. Strong was saved in a Finney revival meeting (141-142), so we have Finney to thank for Strong's tremendous Systematic Theology! ;)
 
Last edited:

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
The charge that Finney did not hold to "original sin" is interesting. I have been looking in the downloaded PDF I have of his Sys. Theo. and am still trying to sort out that 19th century terminology. I am currently reading Theologians of the Baptist Tradition, ed. by Timothy George and David Dockery. This is an excellent book and I highly recommend it. It has everyone from Gill to Erickson.
Finney taught that sin was an act of the free will always committed against one's convictions of what is right. So I don't think he would agreed with original sin as that which brought true guilt on individuals as soon as they were born. He did however; believe in our proneness to commit sin. His goal in doing this was as he said in this quote: "Thus I have shown that sin, in every instance of it's commission, is utterly inexcusable".

This would be consistent with his strong view that free will is essential in order to have moral agency before God. Still, he seems to have believed that self reformation is not the sum total of being saved. Another quote from the chapter "The Savior Lifted Up". "Christianity, from beginning to end is received from Christ by simple faith. In this way, and only in this way, does the pardon of sin come to the soul".

Like I said before, I would probably not say you should use Finney as a theology reference. I'm just saying that if you come across his name as a favorite of someone you are reading or a pastor you hear mentions him don't be horrified. The little book I have, "The Spirit Filled Life", doesn't seem all that bad.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Finney taught that sin was an act of the free will always committed against one's convictions of what is right. So I don't think he would agreed with original sin as that which brought true guilt on individuals as soon as they were born. He did however; believe in our proneness to commit sin. His goal in doing this was as he said in this quote: "Thus I have shown that sin, in every instance of it's commission, is utterly inexcusable".

This would be consistent with his strong view that free will is essential in order to have moral agency before God. Still, he seems to have believed that self reformation is not the sum total of being saved. Another quote from the chapter "The Savior Lifted Up". "Christianity, from beginning to end is received from Christ by simple faith. In this way, and only in this way, does the pardon of sin come to the soul".

Like I said before, I would probably not say you should use Finney as a theology reference. I'm just saying that if you come across his name as a favorite of someone you are reading or a pastor you hear mentions him don't be horrified. The little book I have, "The Spirit Filled Life", doesn't seem all that bad.
Good analysis. I have two of his books, and have been blessed. However, they were not on theology. As I said, in seminary I read his Systematic Theology and was appalled. It was not good theology. When I said that to my prof, he immediately agreed. When we retired from Japan 11 years ago to teach, I had to throw away a bunch of books, and that was one of them. Kind of wish I had it now just to review it again. :Coffee
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Great! Thank you. I have said elsewhere on the BB that I have read Finney's Systematic Theology and thought it to be very poor. I do believe he was a great (meaning influential) revivalist, so I want him to be properly represented. We shouldn't lie about people, and we shouldn't accuse other believers of being liars or heretics without genuine, original source facts. So much has been said about Finney that is factually inaccurate, so that it's hard to sort it out simply by reading the Internet. (You know, the Internet isn't always right!!!)
Would state in certain aspects, the Internet is rarely right

And only the Lord knows Finney state at death, just stating that we have so many better teachers to read and hear to learn then what He taught
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Okay, good.
Just was trying to say that modern day Evangelical churches has decided to separate getting saved and then getting discipled to a larger degree, as want numbers to show many getting saved, but many times do not bother to do follow up with them to see "if it stuck" as my churches theme is to make more and better disciples of Lord Jesus
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
The charge that Finney did not hold to "original sin" is interesting. I have been looking in the downloaded PDF I have of his Sys. Theo. and am still trying to sort out that 19th century terminology. I am currently reading Theologians of the Baptist Tradition, ed. by Timothy George and David Dockery. This is an excellent book and I highly recommend it. It has everyone from Gill to Erickson.

In the chapter on Walter Thomas Conner, a Southern Baptist, he echoes what has been said of Finney about original sin: "Conner refused to accept either the Augustinian or the federal theories" (p. 209). But no one calls Conner a heretic! Original sin is originally a Calvinistic doctrine.... Calvinists seem to hate Finney categorically and sometimes without stated reason! Conner was called a "modified Calvinist" (p. 211), but late in life changed from "penal substitution" to "Christ as victor."

In the same book, none other than A. H. Strong was saved in a Finney revival meeting (141-142), so we have Finney to thank for Strong's tremendous Systematic Theology! ;)
For a long time, Strongs and Gills seemed to be the 2 go to systematic theologies for Baptists to use
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Just was trying to say that modern day Evangelical churches has decided to separate getting saved and then getting discipled to a larger degree, as want numbers to show many getting saved, but many times do not bother to do follow up with them to see "if it stuck" as my churches theme is to make more and better disciples of Lord Jesus
We have a very strong discipleship program at our church also.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
For a long time, Strongs and Gills seemed to be the 2 go to systematic theologies for Baptists to use
Yeah, Strong's was the textbook in the first ever systematic theology course I took in the fall of 1976, and I still have it. Gill's work not so much, though a Calvinist friend eventually gave me his book, and I have occasionally consulted it.
 
Top