Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God!

Speaking of "wolf in sheep's clothing", this site I found calls Finney exactly that.<a href="http://www.gty.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm" target="_blank">A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
How Charles Finney's Theology Ravaged the Evangelical Movement
</a> However, he links to this rebuttal sitehttp://www.stopsinning.net/Johnson.htm claiming Finney was "misrepresented". What I saw on the link of his sermons I posted before was enough for me.

[ August 13, 2002, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

I don't think you have to agree with us to believe that Finney was a heretic in many ways. I think Charles Hodge addressed a number of Finney's doctrinal abberations.

 

The only requirement that allows people into the eternal care of Jesus is ‘faith in Him.' Romans 3:22 says, ‘ . . . the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all those who believe . . .' Also, Romans 5:11 tells us that ‘ . . . through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.' Faith in Jesus brings everlasting life. This is a must in every preacher/evangelist.

I have known for some time that Five Point Calvin's slam Finney because they don't like his forte in evangelism. Some also look down at Rev. Dr. Billy Graham's process of evangelism. I am sure that most of what they preached was Biblical. I have to read some of Finney's sermons to confirm this in my own mind.

I was a Christian for many years before I fully bought the idea of Christ's imputing His righteousness to my account. The reason why I fought this idea was because, at the time, I believed it was possible to lose my salvation. If I accepted ‘imputation' then I would almost have to believe in eternal security. Acquaintances and friends and the Lord finally convinced me of the perfect security for one who is born again.

Finny's views would never measure up to Calvinistic theology but this did not make him a heretic. Touching the five bases of Calvinism does not make you a better Christian than someone who doesn't believe Augustinianism. Believing the Five Points of Arminianism does not make great Christians. I think a persons love for the Lord is what makes that person a great Christian. I do also know that other facts enter into the whole picture. We have to be careful not to make ourselves 21 century Pharisees.

Let me remind you from the Bible that two Christians believed that the resurrection was in the past while they were yet living. This did not take away the fact that they were saved and Christian. This was a major error in theology but God still claimed them as His own. [I Timothy 1:19c through 20] & [II Timothy 2:17-19]

What I am saying is that Finney may not have measured up to our theological understanding as we know it today, but he won many souls to Jesus Christ. God will judge the evangelist as well as each one of us on this board. Oh, incidentally, Edwards will be judged for his erroneous view of Unconditional Election along with the other three points that were in error.

I have known and heard some great preachers that did not believe in ‘imputation of righteousness' because they did not believe in eternal security. These men did, however, love the Lord and lived Godly lives.

I always say, when I get to Heaven it will only be because of His mercy toward me.

All of us will be getting into the eternal Presence of God only because we believed John 3:16.

 

Martin Luther believed that there were only two sacraments-- infant baptism a the Lord's Supper. p 444 {The Moody Handbook of Theology, by Paul Enns}

Augustine, the patron saint of John Calvin, and Origen believed in the 'Ransom To Satan Theory' as related to the atonement. p 319. We who are orthodox believe that the payment was made to God the Father.

The early Church Father, Irenaeus, (A.D. 130-200?) taught that Christ went through all the phases of Adam's life and experience, including the experience of sin. We definitely know that this was error. p 319.

After the Synod of Dort (Nov. 13,1618 through May 9, 1619) there was persecution of other Christians. Quote: 'Persecution followed the Synod's decision. Two hundred Arminian pastors lost their posts; the statesman John van Olden Barnevedt was beheaded; Hugo Grotius was condemned and imprisoned for life, but he escaped after two years. Many Arminians fled the country.'

Did the Calvinists who beheaded John van Olden Barnevedt enter Heaven at the time of their death having commited murder?

Do you think that men like Luther, Augustine, Origen, and Irenaeus on the day of their death entered Heaven? Were they Christians? Or were they just mistaken in some of their theology?

 

Ray,

The test of obedience and faithfulness is not how many professions of faith are made. It is a far deeper one -- fidelity to the faith and to those who hold the faith. On this account, both evangelists you have mentioned fail. I do not doubt that some--even many--have come to know Christ. But their doctrine is aberrant and unbiblical

The question is not "Is most of what they preached biblical?" This is not a majority vote occasion. The question is, were they fully in conformity to scriptural teaching. Finney was not. Finney contradicted some fundamental doctrines of the faith and taught others to do the same. That is not excusable, even if he is not a Calvinist.

This is an unconscionable statement and it is remarkable that you make it. It once again calls into question your theology and reading of the text. Where in the text do you possibly get God still claiming them as his own? These are men who made shipwreck of the faith, were handed over to Satan, went astray from the truth and taught other to do the same, they upset the faith of some (something that Christ had a statement about a millstone around the neck). How can you possibly say these are descriptions of saved men?

How do you know how many souls Finney won? Are you God? Of course not. We cannot judge fruit eternally. We can judge doctrine and preaching and on this, Finney fails. Even some his own contemporaries warned him about his fiath and doctrine. You have yet to show one iota of scriptural evidence that Edwards was wrong. But that is becoming typical.

I wish Ray, that you would strengthen your argumentation skills. These are the kinds of things that ThD programs are supposed to inculcate. Your posts show a famine of theology at times, seeming totally unable to reckon with the explicity statements of Scripture. I do not say that to be arrogant but I urge you to do more than repeat certain mantras and formulas and stock arguments. Think about what you say. This post contained several of these: Arguing that Finnney must be right because he won a lot of souls to the Lord (That doesn't make him right and you have no way to know how many souls were won); arguing that the men in 1 and 2 Timothy were saved in spite of the description of them; Suggesting that Edwards was wrong without having furnished any biblical proof of such. Let us try to raise the level of discussion back to Scripture and what it says.

 

I think the term soul winning and soul winners are misnomers at best.
No offense to those who honestly think they are doing any soul winning at all. In my Arminian days we used to go out to slum and depressed areas, parks, jails, hospitals, to do soul winning and we honestly thought that was what we were. We looked forward with anticipation to our rewards and crowns, and almost forgot that without Jesus Christ there is no one at all who will be looking forward to any welcome from God and to any crown, which is why the four and twenty elders in Revelation lay down all their crowns at His feet because He is the One who truly deserves any praise us miserable creatures, Finney and Graham included, may get.
When God brought me face to face in His own time and way as to what Grace was, I realized there is only one true soul winner and that is JESUS CHRIST, the only begotten Son of God, who denied Himself and set out to do only the will of His Father and that will included redeeming everyone of those whom the Father wanted redeemed.

 

I understand what you are saying but I think the term is more "popular" than "technical." We use it for the process of presenting the gospel to someone and calling them to repentance and faith in Christ. Apart from the power of God through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit it will do no good. With the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, the sovereignty of God brings the messenger to the unbelieving elect so that through the God ordained method of faith and repentance, salvation is granted to the sinner. While these are not terms I use often, I understand their significance. Just last night, I was reading some in Spurgeon's The Soulwinner. It was refreshing, challenging, and encouraging.

 

To go into all the word and preach the gospel. I don't think I am suggesting we do Jesus' job for him. However, as Paul said, we are laborers in his vineyard, servants through whom people believe. In fact, in Christ's high priestly prayer he prayed for "those who would believe on [him] through the apostles' word." Clearly that was a reference to those who would be saved.

However, see the new thread on teh shepherd and the sheep.

 

Hymenaeus and Alexander were delivered to Satan by the Apostle Paul to teach them a lesson that they should not blaspheme God and His truth about the future resurrection. Yes, their faith was wrecked but God still owned them and were taken into Heaven. Paul says 'they put away their faith.' In verse 20 is the Greek word, 'paideuo' (paheedyoo-o) which means to train up a child, educate, discipline by punishing--chasten or to instruct. As you know from Hebrews 12 God does not chasten the lost the non-elect. He only chastens His people. These two men were among the people of God. That is why Paul says in II Timothy 2:18-21 that even this flagrant error of belief was not enough to damn their souls. Heresy? Yes. Heresy according to Webster says, 'adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma.' Were these two men saved when their lives were over? Absolutely!

We have to keep close to what the Bible says lest we also teach things that are not pleasing to our Lord.

 

Surface reading of the Scripture will not make anyone a theologian. Study will accomplish this after a long, long, period of diligence.

 

Why didn't God chasten them? Why did Paul hand them over to Satan?? You would be very hard pressed to make any reasonable case from 2 Tim that these men were still saved. Once again, the text is the issue. Going astray from the faith shows that one is not in the faith (2 Cor 13; 1 Cor 15; Col 1; and a host of verses that room does not permit). If these men were believers, there is no biblical evidence of it.

 

So why do you continue to fail to deal with Scripture. On issue after issue, you have refused to deal with the text. You continually insert your own abilities of comprehension as the test of whether or not something is right or biblical. You read on the surface without doing the task of biblical correlation. That is dangerous and it is what leads to false teaching. You need to be careful.

 

Who's feeding goats??? Come on, Glen. You know better than that.

 

Pastor Larry,

When the apostle says in I Timothy 1:20 that he delivered them to Satan, he probably expelled them from the assembly, if they had one in this setting, or inflicted some other form of discipline fitting a Christian believer. When he said that he turned them over to Satan he was saying that God would in time fully discipline them for their erring theological faith. And anyway, how could Paul turn them over to Satan if the Devil owned them all along. Also, Paul says, ' . . . some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck,' referring to the two men in question. These men were saved. I thought that you believed in eternal security. Again, study the word, 'learn' in the Greek and God may change your mind. God does not discipline/chastise sinners. They are already under condemnation. [John 3:18b,c].

 

I went to a Search using the two words, Evangelist Finney.

Rev. Dr. Billy Graham said of Finney that he was one of the greatest evangelists of all time. L.G. Parkhurst, Jr. said that 85% of those converted by God kept true to their faith. They probably followed up on those who confessed Christ.

I found out that he really believe in ‘free will' and preached with a passion because he knew that the Gospel was for all people. I suppose you view this as doctrinal error. Here was an evangelist who loved God and human beings. I will continue to study Finney, but don't know a lot about his doctrine.

I do know that he preached about Christian perfection which we should all strive to emulate, so we can be more like God. ‘Be ye holy for I am holy.' Sounds like a good emphasis to me.

And as far as Charles Hodge, he has more than enough error to deal with in His theology. I think he is a Five Point Calvinist. Four of his points of major doctrinal truth are faulty.

 

Ray, your sources, regardless of their pedigree, are way off on Charles Finney.

From www.gty.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm :

The Fallout from Finney's Doctrines

Predictably, most of Finney's spiritual heirs lapsed into apostasy, Socinianism, mere moralism, cultlike perfectionism, and other related errors. In short, Finney's chief legacy was confusion and doctrinal compromise. Evangelical Christianity virtually disappeared from western New York in Finney's own lifetime. Despite Finney's accounts of glorious "revivals," most of the vast region of New England where he held his revival campaigns fell into a permanent spiritual coldness during Finney's lifetime and more than a hundred years later still has not emerged from that malaise. This is directly owing to the influence of Finney and others who were simultaneously promoting similar ideas.

The Western half of New York became known as "the burnt-over district," because of the negative effects of the revivalist movement that culminated in Finney's work there. These facts are often obscured in the popular lore about Finney. But even Finney himself spoke of "a burnt district" [Memoirs, 78], and he lamented the absence of any lasting fruit from his evangelistic efforts. He wrote,

I was often instrumental in bringing Christians under great conviction, and into a state of temporary repentance and faith . . . . [But] falling short of urging them up to a point, where they would become so acquainted with Christ as to abide in Him, they would of course soon relapse into their former state [cited in B. B. Warfield, Studies in Perfectionism, 2 vols. (New York: Oxford, 1932), 2:24].

One of Finney's contemporaries registered a similar assessment, but more bluntly:

During ten years, hundreds, and perhaps thousands, were annually reported to be converted on all hands; but now it is admitted, that real converts are comparatively few. It is declared, even by [Finney] himself, that "the great body of them are a disgrace to religion" [cited in Warfield, 2:23].

B. B. Warfield cited the testimony of Asa Mahan, one of Finney's close associates,

. . . who tells us—to put it briefly—that everyone who was concerned in these revivals suffered a sad subsequent lapse: the people were left like a dead coal which could not be reignited; the pastors were shorn of all their spiritual power; and the evangelists—"among them all," he says, "and I was personally acquainted with nearly every one of them—I cannot recall a single man, brother Finney and father Nash excepted, who did not after a few years lose his unction, and become equally disqualified for the office of evangelist and that of pastor."
Thus the great "Western Revivals" ran out into disaster. . . . Over and over again, when he proposed to revisit one of the churches, delegations were sent him or other means used, to prevent what was thought of as an affliction. . . . Even after a generation had passed by, these burnt children had no liking for the fire [Warfield, 2:26-28].

Finney grew discouraged with the revival campaigns and tried his hand at pastoring in New York City before accepting the presidency of Oberlin College. During those post-revivalist years, he turned his attention to devising a doctrine of Christian perfectionism. Perfectionist ideas, in vogue at the time, were a whole new playground for serious heresy on the fringes of evangelicalism—and Finney became one of the best-known advocates of perfectionism. The evil legacy of the perfectionism touted by Finney and friends in the mid-nineteenth century has been thoroughly critiqued by B. B. Warfield in his important work Studies in Perfectionism. Perfectionism was the logical consequence of Finney's Pelagianism, and its predictable result was spiritual disaster.

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org

[ August 15, 2002, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Ken Hamilton,

When you speak of cult-like perfectionists groups would you include the Nazarene Church denomination?

You said that the result of Finney's revivalism did not prevail into the future. Remember, we are always only one generation away from pure paganism. Each new generation must answer the call from John 3:16 for himself or herself. Christianity does not renew itself automatically.

 

I have not heard them mentioned as a cult. Of course, the word "cult" is way overused in our nation's religious discussions.

Ken