Theology,”9 and these became the “New Measures” which have since increasingly characterized American evangelicalism and its evangelism.10 Finney was not an Arminian. He was a Pelagian, and accordingly reduced his evangelism to a psychological approach.11 To him, and to his followers, salvation was simply a redirecting of the will, not a change of nature necessarily beginning with regeneration.12 This marked the beginning of the idea of preaching to persuade the will rather than challenge the mind with Divine truth to reach the conscience. Intelligent, biblical preaching would eventually give way to a more psychological and emotional approach. Man, according to Finney, had the power to change his own heart, i.e., the Pelagian doctrine of free will. In Mr. Finney’s own words:
…in our investigations henceforth, let it be understood, that I use regeneration and conversion as synonymous terms.13
We have said that regeneration is synonymous, in the Bible, with a new heart. But sinners are required to make to themselves a new heart, which they could not do, if they were not active in this change. If the work is a work of God, in such a sense, that He must first
9 The use of the “New Measures” split the Presbyterians into the “Old School,” or orthodox
Calvinists who held to the Westminster Standards, and the “New School,” or those who used the “New Measures” and adopted the “Taylorism” or “New Haven Theology” of a semi–Pelagian system, revivalism, moral reform and interdenominational cooperation. See W. A. Hoffecker, “New School Theology,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990. pp. 767– 768.
“New Haven Theology,” Taylorism,” or “The New Divinity” was the Pelagian system of plenary human ability taught in New England, espoused, refined and popularized by Charles G. Finney. See W. R. Downing, Lectures on Calvinism and Arminianism. Morgan Hill, CA: P.I.R.S. Publications. 2000, pp. 288–290, 320, 324–325, 327–333.
10 For a brief history of the “altar call” and the birth of revivalism, see Iain Murray, Revival and Revivalism, pp. 163–190.
11 Arminianism holds that man has a fallen, sinful nature, and that the will of man is brought by the Holy Spirit to a given place where it can either choose or refuse the gospel message— prevenient grace. Pelagianism holds that man does not have a fallen, sinful nature and thus man possesses a will which is entirely free [plenary human ability] and thus that man possesses the power of contrary choice. Every man’s will is allegedly as free as that of unfallen Adam. This is a denial of the imputation of Adam’s sin [the immediate imputation of Adam’s sin—original sin] and also a denial of the inheritance of Adam’s fallen nature [mediate imputation]. Speaking of his pastor, George W. Gale, Finney stated about Gale’s Calvinistic convictions: “…in short he held all those doctrines that logically flow from the fact of a nature sinful in itself….These doctrines I could not receive. I could not receive his views on the subject of atonement, regeneration, faith, repentance, the slavery of the will, or any of the kindred doctrines.” Charles G. Finney, Autobiography, p. 46.
12 The idea of simply redirecting the will was based upon the Pelagian idea that command implied ability. “The doctrine upon which I insisted, that the command to obey God implied the power to do so, created in some places considerable opposition at first…the Spirit’s influences are those of teaching, persuading, convicting and, of course, a moral influence, I was regarded by many as teaching new and strange doctrines.” Charles G. Finney, Autobiography, p. 157.
13 Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971. p. 285. Finney equated regeneration at times with a moral persuasive influence upon the mind, with sanctification, and with conversion. This confusion resulted from his Pelagian and Perfectionist presuppositions. See B. B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. VIII. Perfectionism. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1
…in our investigations henceforth, let it be understood, that I use regeneration and conversion as synonymous terms.13
We have said that regeneration is synonymous, in the Bible, with a new heart. But sinners are required to make to themselves a new heart, which they could not do, if they were not active in this change. If the work is a work of God, in such a sense, that He must first
9 The use of the “New Measures” split the Presbyterians into the “Old School,” or orthodox
Calvinists who held to the Westminster Standards, and the “New School,” or those who used the “New Measures” and adopted the “Taylorism” or “New Haven Theology” of a semi–Pelagian system, revivalism, moral reform and interdenominational cooperation. See W. A. Hoffecker, “New School Theology,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990. pp. 767– 768.
“New Haven Theology,” Taylorism,” or “The New Divinity” was the Pelagian system of plenary human ability taught in New England, espoused, refined and popularized by Charles G. Finney. See W. R. Downing, Lectures on Calvinism and Arminianism. Morgan Hill, CA: P.I.R.S. Publications. 2000, pp. 288–290, 320, 324–325, 327–333.
10 For a brief history of the “altar call” and the birth of revivalism, see Iain Murray, Revival and Revivalism, pp. 163–190.
11 Arminianism holds that man has a fallen, sinful nature, and that the will of man is brought by the Holy Spirit to a given place where it can either choose or refuse the gospel message— prevenient grace. Pelagianism holds that man does not have a fallen, sinful nature and thus man possesses a will which is entirely free [plenary human ability] and thus that man possesses the power of contrary choice. Every man’s will is allegedly as free as that of unfallen Adam. This is a denial of the imputation of Adam’s sin [the immediate imputation of Adam’s sin—original sin] and also a denial of the inheritance of Adam’s fallen nature [mediate imputation]. Speaking of his pastor, George W. Gale, Finney stated about Gale’s Calvinistic convictions: “…in short he held all those doctrines that logically flow from the fact of a nature sinful in itself….These doctrines I could not receive. I could not receive his views on the subject of atonement, regeneration, faith, repentance, the slavery of the will, or any of the kindred doctrines.” Charles G. Finney, Autobiography, p. 46.
12 The idea of simply redirecting the will was based upon the Pelagian idea that command implied ability. “The doctrine upon which I insisted, that the command to obey God implied the power to do so, created in some places considerable opposition at first…the Spirit’s influences are those of teaching, persuading, convicting and, of course, a moral influence, I was regarded by many as teaching new and strange doctrines.” Charles G. Finney, Autobiography, p. 157.
13 Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971. p. 285. Finney equated regeneration at times with a moral persuasive influence upon the mind, with sanctification, and with conversion. This confusion resulted from his Pelagian and Perfectionist presuppositions. See B. B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. VIII. Perfectionism. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1
