The Heresy of Perfectionism
- Thread starter zone
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
C
Brother I do realise that, your question of a way has been made not to though just shows just how much grace abounds if and when we do stumble. I love the grace of God and what makes it hard is when others, not you, come across with law mixed with grace, perfect look at the law says oops we are all in trouble here, grace says I'll cover you, be good,don't play games though, this is serious, I didn't hang on a cross for you to mock me, I will strengthen you to overcome, keep going I'm here.
Alot better than Ooops I'm in trouble here
Alot better than Ooops I'm in trouble here
yeah your right, but you will see how well those who say amen listen to your words. Peace seems a foreign word in some people's vocabulary. 
AMEN is an OATH.
john's warning about not bidding them godspeed is an important study....look into what godspeed means.
Romans 6
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
A
No I dont think I falsely accused you or slandered you, your personality is not full of grace, you go out of your way to argue, then you act as if your getting the treatment of a person that stands for truth. Your in a gang, you talk to your gang while you post. You handle the word of God deceitfully. Your threads promote you, and
what you think everyone should do. You use the word of God to hit people with. You argue and find every fault
in what anyone says. You serve no purpose, but to win. And you do in your own eyes and are proud. And
call it pride in God. But it isnt and He is not proud of you. You show disrespect to all that oppose your form
of behavior and have full confidence in yourself. And show in your posts a constant need to vindicate yourself.
Ive read lots of your threads and its nothing but the strength of the flesh and pride mixed with fear and
damnation. The word of God does teach against sin, as it should. But its the Light of the gospel of grace
that shines on the sin, and its grace that breaks the sin, and its grace thats teaches righteousness that replaces
the sin. All you do is point it out. Your words have no power but to lead to condemnation. You have given
nothing holy, nor anything id even want a dog to eat. I avoid you, I even limit myself to read your posts
because i value a peaceful mind.
what you think everyone should do. You use the word of God to hit people with. You argue and find every fault
in what anyone says. You serve no purpose, but to win. And you do in your own eyes and are proud. And
call it pride in God. But it isnt and He is not proud of you. You show disrespect to all that oppose your form
of behavior and have full confidence in yourself. And show in your posts a constant need to vindicate yourself.
Ive read lots of your threads and its nothing but the strength of the flesh and pride mixed with fear and
damnation. The word of God does teach against sin, as it should. But its the Light of the gospel of grace
that shines on the sin, and its grace that breaks the sin, and its grace thats teaches righteousness that replaces
the sin. All you do is point it out. Your words have no power but to lead to condemnation. You have given
nothing holy, nor anything id even want a dog to eat. I avoid you, I even limit myself to read your posts
because i value a peaceful mind.
A
it does when you apply verses referring to the perfection of Jesus Christ to yourself and your own life and make it seem that you are as perfect or more perfect from God and think that your "perfection" to call God's children deluded dogs and wolves.
zone, i wasn't referring to you. you didn't say AMEN to the comment to cease debating about it and leave it in God's hands then continue self justifying yourself a few minutes later.
anyway, I'm done address a person who says I'm not worthy of respect.
zone, i wasn't referring to you. you didn't say AMEN to the comment to cease debating about it and leave it in God's hands then continue self justifying yourself a few minutes later.
anyway, I'm done address a person who says I'm not worthy of respect.
Again, the confusion being -- Righteousness, Faith, Justification, Jesus, The Way
Faith in What??
Zone, you have no doctrine, no righteousness, and thus cannot place 'faith' in anything,
but rather, seemingly, in Everything (or is it nothing). Yes I research a lot, we study to
show ourselves approved, RIGHTLY dividing the Word ... I encourage you again to get
control of yourself and control of your thread(s) - you seem to have neither. Why not
start a new thread when a new topic comes along, you are now 30+ pages into a topic
that has little or no premise. Again, no root, thus no growth.
What can you say of Sproul? Reformed? Calvinist? Against Sanctification that leads to
perfection? Which Perfection, there being 24 words used in scripture, apart from the
proper perfection there is no telios and Calvinism. I say it is a BUSINESS he and his
cronies are in of offering up sin, so they can manage it --- CHAOS and CHRONOS those old
demons. Philippians he did not touch, it is much clearer there that he is a Pharisee, and in
his office or station as professor, theologian, or preacher, just as the Pharisee Saul, he
cannot himself see perfection, but for the very loss of his office. Offering approval of
illegitimacy, saying abortion is evil. Offering divorce and remarriage as a way to
procreate more little evil people for the cult? There is no telios in Calvinism, because it's
falseness seeks to prevent it, otherwise the business cannot proceed, with it, Calvinism,
Bible Colleges, Religions and Churches will fall ... we press on ...
Romans 3:22
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them
that believe: for there is no difference:
Romans 10:14-17How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and
how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear
without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written,
How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings
of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath
believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Romans 14:1
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Romans 16:25-27
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of
Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the
world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according
to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience
of faith: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
1 Corinthians 2:5
That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
1 Corinthians 15:14
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
1 Corinthians 15:17
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
2 Corinthians 13:5
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your
own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
Galatians 3:26
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Colossians 1:23
If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of
the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is
under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
Galatians 1:6-7
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of
Christ and are turning to a different gospel – not that there is another one, but there
are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
Faith in What??
Zone, you have no doctrine, no righteousness, and thus cannot place 'faith' in anything,
but rather, seemingly, in Everything (or is it nothing). Yes I research a lot, we study to
show ourselves approved, RIGHTLY dividing the Word ... I encourage you again to get
control of yourself and control of your thread(s) - you seem to have neither. Why not
start a new thread when a new topic comes along, you are now 30+ pages into a topic
that has little or no premise. Again, no root, thus no growth.
What can you say of Sproul? Reformed? Calvinist? Against Sanctification that leads to
perfection? Which Perfection, there being 24 words used in scripture, apart from the
proper perfection there is no telios and Calvinism. I say it is a BUSINESS he and his
cronies are in of offering up sin, so they can manage it --- CHAOS and CHRONOS those old
demons. Philippians he did not touch, it is much clearer there that he is a Pharisee, and in
his office or station as professor, theologian, or preacher, just as the Pharisee Saul, he
cannot himself see perfection, but for the very loss of his office. Offering approval of
illegitimacy, saying abortion is evil. Offering divorce and remarriage as a way to
procreate more little evil people for the cult? There is no telios in Calvinism, because it's
falseness seeks to prevent it, otherwise the business cannot proceed, with it, Calvinism,
Bible Colleges, Religions and Churches will fall ... we press on ...
Romans 3:22
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them
that believe: for there is no difference:
Romans 10:14-17How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and
how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear
without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written,
How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings
of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath
believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Romans 14:1
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Romans 16:25-27
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of
Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the
world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according
to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience
of faith: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
1 Corinthians 2:5
That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
1 Corinthians 15:14
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
1 Corinthians 15:17
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
2 Corinthians 13:5
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your
own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
Galatians 3:26
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Colossians 1:23
If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of
the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is
under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
Galatians 1:6-7
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of
Christ and are turning to a different gospel – not that there is another one, but there
are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
right.
you dont have ANYONE on 'ignore": you read every post.
is this Grade 8?
i know you despise calvin. goes against your finneyan PERFECTIONIST SECOND BAPTISM, SECOND GRACE "theology" (unless you've repudiated that and i missed it).
finney was a heretic and his 'gospel' was manufactured and destroyed the lives and hopes of many who may have come to Christ. but you push the mythology surrounding him, never bothering to accept the reality: why would you? you've got too much invested in your brand of his perfectionist heresy.
restate your point clearly. i'll address it.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Finney vs. Justification by Faith[/FONT]
Specifically, what were Finney's most serious errors? At the top of the list stands his rejection of the doctrine of justification by faith. Finney denied that the righteousness of Christ is the sole ground of our justification, teaching instead that sinners must reform their own hearts in order to be acceptable to God. (His emphasis on self-reformation apart from divine enablement is again a strong echo of Pelagianism.)
Finney spends a considerable amount of time in several of his works arguing against "that theological fiction of imputation" [Memoirs, 58]. Those who have any grasp of Protestant doctrine will see immediately that his attack at this point is a blatant rejection of the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide). It places him outside the pale of true evangelical Protestantism. The doctrine of imputed righteousness is the very heart of the historic difference between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. The whole doctrine of justification by faith hinges on this concept. But Finney flatly rejected it. He derided the concept of imputation as unjust: "I could not but regard and treat this whole question of imputation as a theological fiction, somewhat related to our legal fiction of John Doe and Richard Roe" [Memoirs, 60]. Dismissing the many biblical texts that expressly say righteousness is imputed to believers for their justification, he wrote,
Finney's position on these matters also caused him to define justification in subjective, rather than objective, terms. Protestants have historically insisted that justification is a purely forensic declaration, giving the penitent sinner an immediate right standing before God on the merit of Christ's righteousness, not their own (cf. Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:9). By forensic, we mean that it is a legal declaration, like a courtroom verdict or a marriage pronouncement ("I now pronounce you husband and wife"). It changes the person's external status rather than affecting some kind of internal change; it is a wholly objective reality.
The subjective transformation of the believer that conforms us to Christ's image is sanctification—a subsequent and separate reality, distinct from justification. Since the dawn of the Protestant Reformation, the virtually unanimous Protestant consensus has been that justification is in no sense grounded in or conditioned on our sanctification. Catholicism, on the other hand, mingles justification and sanctification, making sanctification a prerequisite to final justification.
Finney sided with Rome on this point. His rejection of the doctrine of imputation left him with no alternative: "Gospel justification is not to be regarded as a forensic or judicial proceeding" [Systematic Theology, 360].
Finney departed further from historic Protestantism by expressly denying that Christ's righteousness is the sole ground of the believer's justification, arguing instead that justification is grounded only in the benevolence of God. (This position is identical to that of Socinians and theological liberals.)
Obfuscating the issue further, Finney listed several "necessary conditions" (insisting these are not, technically, grounds) of justification. These "necessary conditions" included Christ's atoning death, the Christian's own faith, repentance, sanctification, and—most ominously—the believer's ongoing obedience to the law. Finney wrote,
The clear implication of Finney's view is that justification ultimately hinges on the believer's own obedience, and God will not truly and finally pardon the repentant sinner until after that penitent one completes a lifetime of faithful obedience. Finney himself said as much, employing the undiluted language of perfectionism. He wrote,
you dont have ANYONE on 'ignore": you read every post.
is this Grade 8?
i know you despise calvin. goes against your finneyan PERFECTIONIST SECOND BAPTISM, SECOND GRACE "theology" (unless you've repudiated that and i missed it).
finney was a heretic and his 'gospel' was manufactured and destroyed the lives and hopes of many who may have come to Christ. but you push the mythology surrounding him, never bothering to accept the reality: why would you? you've got too much invested in your brand of his perfectionist heresy.
restate your point clearly. i'll address it.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Finney vs. Justification by Faith[/FONT]
Specifically, what were Finney's most serious errors? At the top of the list stands his rejection of the doctrine of justification by faith. Finney denied that the righteousness of Christ is the sole ground of our justification, teaching instead that sinners must reform their own hearts in order to be acceptable to God. (His emphasis on self-reformation apart from divine enablement is again a strong echo of Pelagianism.)
Finney spends a considerable amount of time in several of his works arguing against "that theological fiction of imputation" [Memoirs, 58]. Those who have any grasp of Protestant doctrine will see immediately that his attack at this point is a blatant rejection of the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide). It places him outside the pale of true evangelical Protestantism. The doctrine of imputed righteousness is the very heart of the historic difference between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. The whole doctrine of justification by faith hinges on this concept. But Finney flatly rejected it. He derided the concept of imputation as unjust: "I could not but regard and treat this whole question of imputation as a theological fiction, somewhat related to our legal fiction of John Doe and Richard Roe" [Memoirs, 60]. Dismissing the many biblical texts that expressly say righteousness is imputed to believers for their justification, he wrote,
These and similar passages are relied upon, as teaching the doctrine of an imputed righteousness; and such as these: "The Lord our righteousness" (Phil. 3:9). . . . "Christ our righteousness" is Christ the author or procurer of our justification. But this does not imply that He procures our justification by imputing His obedience to us. . . [Charles Finney, Systematic Theology (Minneapolis: Bethany), 372-73].
Here Finney offers no cogent explanation of what he imagines Scripture does mean when it speaks repeatedly of the imputation of righteousness to believers (e.g., Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:4-6). But throughout all his discussions of imputation Finney repeatedly insists that neither merit nor guilt can righteously be imputed from one person to another. Therefore, Finney argues, the righteousness of Christ can provide no ground for the justification of sinners. Furthermore, he continues:
[Subhead:] Foundation of the justification of penitent believers in Christ. What is the ultimate ground or reason of their justification? 1. It is not founded in Christ's literally suffering the exact penalty of the law for them, and in this sense literally purchasing their justification and eternal salvation [Systematic Theology, 373].
By employing terms such as "exact" and "literal," Finney caricatured the position he was opposing. (The immediate context of this quotation makes clear that he was arguing against the position outlined in the Westminster Confession, which accords with all major Protestant creeds and theologians on the matter of justification.) But Finney could not obscure his own position: Having decided that the doctrine of imputation was a "theological fiction," he was forced to deny not only the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers, but also the imputation of the sinner's guilt to Christ on the cross. Under Finney's system, Christ could not have actually borne anyone else's sin or suffered sin's full penalty in their place and in their stead (contra Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 2:2). Finney therefore rejected the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. (We shall deal with this in more detail below).
Finney's position on these matters also caused him to define justification in subjective, rather than objective, terms. Protestants have historically insisted that justification is a purely forensic declaration, giving the penitent sinner an immediate right standing before God on the merit of Christ's righteousness, not their own (cf. Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:9). By forensic, we mean that it is a legal declaration, like a courtroom verdict or a marriage pronouncement ("I now pronounce you husband and wife"). It changes the person's external status rather than affecting some kind of internal change; it is a wholly objective reality.
The subjective transformation of the believer that conforms us to Christ's image is sanctification—a subsequent and separate reality, distinct from justification. Since the dawn of the Protestant Reformation, the virtually unanimous Protestant consensus has been that justification is in no sense grounded in or conditioned on our sanctification. Catholicism, on the other hand, mingles justification and sanctification, making sanctification a prerequisite to final justification.
Finney sided with Rome on this point. His rejection of the doctrine of imputation left him with no alternative: "Gospel justification is not to be regarded as a forensic or judicial proceeding" [Systematic Theology, 360].
Finney departed further from historic Protestantism by expressly denying that Christ's righteousness is the sole ground of the believer's justification, arguing instead that justification is grounded only in the benevolence of God. (This position is identical to that of Socinians and theological liberals.)
Obfuscating the issue further, Finney listed several "necessary conditions" (insisting these are not, technically, grounds) of justification. These "necessary conditions" included Christ's atoning death, the Christian's own faith, repentance, sanctification, and—most ominously—the believer's ongoing obedience to the law. Finney wrote,
There can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground[SIZE=-2][2][/SIZE] of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law. This is of course denied by those who hold that gospel justification, or the justification of penitent sinners, is of the nature of a forensic or judicial justification. They hold to the legal maxim, that what a man does by another he does by himself, and therefore the law regards Christ's obedience as ours, on the ground that He obeyed for us [Systematic Theology, 362].
Of course, Finney denied that Christ "obeyed for us," claiming that since Christ was Himself obligated to render full obedience to the law, His obedience could justify Himself alone. "It can never be imputed to us," Finney intoned [Systematic Theology, 362].
The clear implication of Finney's view is that justification ultimately hinges on the believer's own obedience, and God will not truly and finally pardon the repentant sinner until after that penitent one completes a lifetime of faithful obedience. Finney himself said as much, employing the undiluted language of perfectionism. He wrote,
By sanctification being a condition of justification, the following things are intended:
(1.) That present, full, and entire consecration of heart and life to God and His service, is an unalterable condition of present pardon of past sin, and of present acceptance with God. (2.) That the penitent soul remains justified no longer than this full-hearted consecration continues. If he falls from his first love into the spirit of self-pleasing, he falls again into bondage to sin and to the law, is condemned, and must repent and do his "first work," must turn to Christ, and renew his faith and love, as a condition of his salvation. . . .
Perseverance in faith and obedience, or in consecration to God, is also an unalterable condition of justification, or of pardon and acceptance with God. By this language in this connection, you will of course understand me to mean, that perseverance in faith and obedience is a condition, not of present, but of final or ultimate acceptance and salvation [Systematic Theology, 368-69].
cont.......
(1.) That present, full, and entire consecration of heart and life to God and His service, is an unalterable condition of present pardon of past sin, and of present acceptance with God. (2.) That the penitent soul remains justified no longer than this full-hearted consecration continues. If he falls from his first love into the spirit of self-pleasing, he falls again into bondage to sin and to the law, is condemned, and must repent and do his "first work," must turn to Christ, and renew his faith and love, as a condition of his salvation. . . .
Perseverance in faith and obedience, or in consecration to God, is also an unalterable condition of justification, or of pardon and acceptance with God. By this language in this connection, you will of course understand me to mean, that perseverance in faith and obedience is a condition, not of present, but of final or ultimate acceptance and salvation [Systematic Theology, 368-69].
cont.......
FINNEY'S PERFECTIONIST HERESIES cont...........:
Thus Finney insisted that justification ultimately hinges on the believer's own performance, not Christ's. Here Finney once more turns his guns against the doctrine of imputation:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Finney vs. Original Sin[/FONT]
As noted above, Finney rejected the notion that Adam's guilty, sinful nature is inherited by all his offspring. In doing so, he was repudiating the clear teaching of Scripture:
Naturally, Finney's denial of original sin also led him to reject the doctrine of human depravity. He flatly denied that fallen humanity suffers from any "constitutional sinfulness" or sinful corruption of human nature:
What seemed to chafe Finney most about evangelical Christianity was the belief that Christ's atonement is a penal satisfaction offered to God. Finney wrote, "I had read nothing on the subject [of the atonement] except my Bible, & what I had there found on the subject I had interpreted as I would have understood the same or like passages in a law book" [Memoirs, 42].
Thus applying nineteenth-century American legal standards to the biblical doctrine of atonement, he concluded that it would be legally unjust to impute the sinner's guilt to Christ or to impute Christ's righteousness to the sinner. As noted above, Finney labeled imputation a "theological fiction" [Memoirs, 58-61]. In essence, this was a denial of the core of evangelical theology, repudiating the heart of Paul's argument about justification by faith in Romans 3-5 (see especially Rom. 4:5)—in effect nullifying the whole gospel!
Further, by ruling out the imputation of guilt and righteousness, Finney was forced to argue that Christ's death should not be regarded as an actual atonement for others' sins. Finney replaced the doctrine of substitutionary atonement with a version of Grotius's "governmental theory" (the same view being revived by those today who tout "moral government theology").
The Grotian view of the atonement is laden with strong Pelagian tendencies. By cutting the sinner off from the imputation of Christ's righteousness, this view automatically requires sinners to attain a righteousness of their own (contra Rom. 10:3). When he embraced such a view of the atonement, Finney had no choice but to adopt a theology that magnifies human ability and minimizes God's role in changing human hearts. He wrote, for example,
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The Fallout from Finney's Doctrines[/FONT]
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,
A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: How Charles Finney's Theology Ravaged the Evangelical Movement
Thus Finney insisted that justification ultimately hinges on the believer's own performance, not Christ's. Here Finney once more turns his guns against the doctrine of imputation:
Those who hold that justification by imputed righteousness is a forensic proceeding, take a view of final or ultimate justification, according with their view of the nature of the transaction. With them, faith receives an imputed righteousness, and a judicial justification. The first act of faith, according to them, introduces the sinner into this relation, and obtains for him a perpetual justification. They maintain that after this first act of faith it is impossible for the sinner to come into condemnation; [Systematic Theology, 369].
But isn't that precisely what Scripture teaches? John 3:18: "He that believeth on him is not condemned." John 5:24: "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." Galatians 3:13: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." It was immediately following his great discourse on justification by faith that the apostle Paul wrote, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1). But Charles Finney was unwilling to let Christians rest in the promise of "no condemnation," and he ridiculed the idea of security in Christ as a notion that would lead to licentious living. He continues, again caricaturing the position he opposes:
that, being once justified, he is always thereafter justified, whatever he may do; indeed that he is never justified by grace, as to sins that are past, upon condition that he ceases to sin; that Christ's righteousness is the ground, and that his own present obedience is not even a condition of his justification, so that, in fact, his own present or future obedience to the law of God is, in no case, and in no sense, a sine qua non of his justification, present or ultimate.
Now this is certainly another gospel from the one I am inculcating. It is not a difference merely upon some speculative or theoretic point. It is a point fundamental to the gospel and to salvation, if any one can be [Systematic Theology, 369.]
As the final paragraph of that excerpt makes clear, Finney himself clearly understood that what he proclaimed was a different gospel from that of historic Protestantism. By denying the forensic nature of justification, Finney was left with no option but to regard justification as a subjective thing grounded not in Christ's redemptive work but in the believer's own obedience—and therefore a matter of works, not faith alone. Now this is certainly another gospel from the one I am inculcating. It is not a difference merely upon some speculative or theoretic point. It is a point fundamental to the gospel and to salvation, if any one can be [Systematic Theology, 369.]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Finney vs. Original Sin[/FONT]
As noted above, Finney rejected the notion that Adam's guilty, sinful nature is inherited by all his offspring. In doing so, he was repudiating the clear teaching of Scripture:
The judgment arose from one transgression [Adam's sin] resulting in condemnation . . . . By the transgression of the one [Adam], death reigned . . . . Through one transgression [Adam's sin] there resulted condemnation to all men . . . . Through the one man's disobedience [Adam's sin] the many were made sinners (Rom. 5:16-19).
Predictably, Finney appealed to human wisdom to justify his rejection of clear biblical teaching: "What law have we violated in inheriting this [sin] nature? What law requires us to have a different nature from that which we possess? Does reason affirm that we are deserving of the wrath and curse of God for ever, for inheriting from Adam a sinful nature?" [Systematic Theology, 320].
Naturally, Finney's denial of original sin also led him to reject the doctrine of human depravity. He flatly denied that fallen humanity suffers from any "constitutional sinfulness" or sinful corruption of human nature:
"Moral depravity cannot consist in any attribute of nature or constitution, nor in any lapsed or fallen state of nature. . . . Moral depravity, as I use the term, does not consist in, nor imply a sinful nature, in the sense that the human soul is sinful in itself. It is not a constitutional sinfulness" [Systematic Theology, 245].
Instead, Finney insisted, "depravity" is a purely voluntary condition, and therefore, sinners have the power simply to will otherwise. In other words, Finney was insisting that all men and women have a natural ability to obey God. Sin results from wrong choices, not from a fallen nature. According to Finney, sinners can freely reform their own hearts, and must do so themselves if they are to be redeemed. Once again, this is sheer Pelagianism:
"[Sinners] are under the necessity of first changing their hearts, or their choice of an end, before they can put forth any volitions to secure any other than a selfish end. And this is plainly the everywhere assumed philosophy of the Bible. That uniformly represents the unregenerate as totally depraved,[SIZE=-1][3][/SIZE] and calls upon them to repent, to make themselves a new heart" [Systematic Theology, 249].
Finney was therefore not ashamed to take credit for his own conversion. Having rejected sola gratia, Finney had destroyed the gospel's safeguard against boasting (Eph. 2:9). As John MacArthur points out,
In Finney's telling of [his conversion] story, it becomes clear that he believed his own will was the determinative factor that brought about his salvation: "On a Sabbath evening [in the autumn of 1821,] I made up my mind that I would settle the question of my soul's salvation at-once, that if it were possible I would make my peace with God" [Memoirs, 16, emphasis added]. Evidently under intense conviction, Finney went into the woods, where he made a promise "that I would give my heart to God [that day] or die in the attempt [Memoirs, 16]. [John MacArthur, Ashamed of the Gospel, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1993), 236.]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Finney vs. Substitutionary Atonement[/FONT]
What seemed to chafe Finney most about evangelical Christianity was the belief that Christ's atonement is a penal satisfaction offered to God. Finney wrote, "I had read nothing on the subject [of the atonement] except my Bible, & what I had there found on the subject I had interpreted as I would have understood the same or like passages in a law book" [Memoirs, 42].
Thus applying nineteenth-century American legal standards to the biblical doctrine of atonement, he concluded that it would be legally unjust to impute the sinner's guilt to Christ or to impute Christ's righteousness to the sinner. As noted above, Finney labeled imputation a "theological fiction" [Memoirs, 58-61]. In essence, this was a denial of the core of evangelical theology, repudiating the heart of Paul's argument about justification by faith in Romans 3-5 (see especially Rom. 4:5)—in effect nullifying the whole gospel!
Further, by ruling out the imputation of guilt and righteousness, Finney was forced to argue that Christ's death should not be regarded as an actual atonement for others' sins. Finney replaced the doctrine of substitutionary atonement with a version of Grotius's "governmental theory" (the same view being revived by those today who tout "moral government theology").
The Grotian view of the atonement is laden with strong Pelagian tendencies. By cutting the sinner off from the imputation of Christ's righteousness, this view automatically requires sinners to attain a righteousness of their own (contra Rom. 10:3). When he embraced such a view of the atonement, Finney had no choice but to adopt a theology that magnifies human ability and minimizes God's role in changing human hearts. He wrote, for example,
There is nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature. A revival is not a miracle, nor dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means—as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means. . . . A revival is as naturally a result of the use of means as a crop is of the use of its appropriate means" [Charles Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, n.d.), 4-5].
Thus Finney constantly downplayed God's work in our salvation, understated the hopelessness of the sinner's condition, and overestimated the power of sinners to change their own hearts. When those errors are traced to their source, what we find is a deficient view of the atonement. Indeed, Finney's denial of vicarious atonement underlies and explains virtually all his theological aberrations.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The Fallout from Finney's Doctrines[/FONT]
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.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].
A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: How Charles Finney's Theology Ravaged the Evangelical Movement
F
Galatians 6:7
"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap."
Ephesians 4:29-31
29 Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice.
1st John 3:18-24
18 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. 19 And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. 20 For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. [ - > 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. 22 And whatever we ask we receive from Him, <- ] because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. 23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us[e] commandment.
24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap."
Ephesians 4:29-31
29 Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice.
1st John 3:18-24
18 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. 19 And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. 20 For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. [ - > 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. 22 And whatever we ask we receive from Him, <- ] because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. 23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us[e] commandment.
24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
F
Absolutely!
The reason why I haven't just come out and given the answer is because there are people who are going to reject it simply because some tend to disagree with other topics of discussion. I would much rather them seek the answer for themselves.
Why did God provide an escape from temptation before sinning? What happens when we choose to use that escape rather than stumble into sin and self condemnation?
The reason why I haven't just come out and given the answer is because there are people who are going to reject it simply because some tend to disagree with other topics of discussion. I would much rather them seek the answer for themselves.
Why did God provide an escape from temptation before sinning? What happens when we choose to use that escape rather than stumble into sin and self condemnation?
Last edited: