Please know that THIS NOT MARTIN LUTHER KING:ROFL:...many people who don't know, when you make mention of Martin Luther, think you're speaking about MLK... no, no this is the great theologian. Please READ and hear his words clearly.
Of Free Will by Martin Luther...
The very name, Free Will, was odious to all the Fathers. I, for my part, admit that God gave to mankind a free will, but the question is, whether this same freedom be in our power and strength, or no? We may very fitly call it a subverted, perverse, fickle, and wavering will, for it is only God that works in us, and we must suffer and be subject to his pleasure. Evan as a potter out of his clay makes a pot or vessel, as he wills, so it is for our free will, to suffer and not to work. It stands not in our strength; for we are not able to do anything that is good in divine matters. I have often resolved to live uprightly, and to lead a true godly life, and to set everything aside that would hinder this, but it was far from being put in execution; even as it was with Peter, when he swore he would lay down hie life for Christ.
I will not lie or dissemble before my God, but will freely confess, I am not able to effect that good which I intend but await the happy hour when God shall be pleased to meet me with his grace.
The will of mankind is either presumptuous or despairing. No human creature can satisfy the law. For the law of God discourses with me as it were after this manner: Here is a great, a high, and a steep mountain, and thou must go over it; whereupon my flesh and free will say, I will go over it; but my conscience says, Thou canst not go over it; then comes despair, and says, If I cannot, then I must forbear. In this sort does the law work in mankind either presumption or despair; yet the law must be preached and taught, for if we preach not the law, then people grow rude and confident, whereas if we preach it, we make them afraid. Saint Augustine writes, that free will, without God�s grace and the Holy Ghost, can do nothing but sin; which sentence sorely troubles the school divines. They say, Augustine spoke hyperbolic , and too much; for they understand that part of Scripture to be spoken only of those people who lived before the deluge, which says: �And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually�, etc.; whereas he speaks in a general way, which these poor school divines do not see any more than what the Holy Ghost says, soon after the deluge, in almost the same words: �And the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man�s sake, for the imagination of man�s heart is evil from his youth.�
Hence, we conclude in general, That man, without the Holy Ghost and God�s grace, can do nothing but sin; he proceeds therein without permission, and from one sin falls into another. Now, if man will not suffer wholesome doctrine, but contemns the all-saving Word, and resists the Holy Ghost, then through the effects and strength of his free will he becomes God�s enemy; he blasphemes the Holy Ghost, and follows the lusts and desires of his own heart, as examples in all times clearly show.
But we must diligently weight the words which the Holy Ghost speaks through Moses: �Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is evil continually�: so that what a man is able to conceive with his thoughts, with his understanding and free will, by highest diligence, is evil, and not once or twice, but evil continually; without the Holy Ghost, man�s reason, will, and understanding, are without the knowledge of God; and to be without the knowledge of God, is nothing else than to be ungodly, to walk in darkness, and to hold that for best which is direct worst.
I speak only of that which is good in divine things, and according to the Holy Scripture; for we must make a difference between that which is temporal, and that which is spiritual, between politics and divinity; for God also allows of the government of the ungodly, and rewards their virtues, yet only so far as belongs to this temporal life; for man�s will and understanding conceive that to be good which is external and temporal � nay, take it to be, not only good, but the chief good.
But when we divines speak of free will, we ask what man�s free will is able to accomplish in divine and spiritual matters, not in outward and temporal affairs: and we conclude that man, without the Holy Ghost, is altogether wicked before God, although he were decked up and trimmed with all the virtues of the heathen, and had all their works.
For, indeed, there are fair and glorious examples in heathendom, of many virtues, where men were temperate, chaste, bountiful, loved their country, parents, wives, and children; were men of courage, and behaved themselves magnanimously and generously.
But the ideas of mankind concerning God, the true worship of God, and God�s will, are altogether stark blindness and darkness. For the light of human wisdom, reason, and understanding, which alone is given to man, comprehends only what is good and profitable outwardly. And although we see that the heathen philosophers now and then discoursed touching God and his wisdom very pertinently, so that some have made prophet of Socrates, of Xenophon, of Plato, etc., yet, because they knew not that God sent his son Christ to save sinners, such fair, glorious, and wiseseeming speeches and disputations are nothing but mere blindness and ignorance. Ah, Lord God! why should we boast of our free will, as if it were able to do anything ever so small, in divine and spiritual matters? when we consider what horrible miseries the devil has brought upon us through sin, we might shame ourselves to death.
For, first, free will led us into original sin, and brought death upon us: afterwards, upon sin followed not only death, but all manner of mischiefs, as we daily find in the world, murder, lying, deceiving, stealing, and other evils, so that no man is safe the twinkling of an eye, in body or goods, but always stands in danger.
And, besides these evils, is afflicted with yet a great, as is noted in the Gospel � namely, that he is possessed of the devil, who makes him mad and raging.
We know not rightly what we became after the fall of our first parents; what from our mother we have brought with us. For we have altogether a confounded, corrupt, and poisoned nature, both in body and soul; throughout the whole of man is nothing that is good.
This is my absolute opinion: he that will maintain that man�s free will is able to do or work anything in spiritual cases, be they never so small, denies Christ. This I have always maintained in my writings, especially in those against Erasmus, one of the learnedest men in the whole world, and thereby I will remain, for I know it to be the truth, though all the world should be against it; yea, the decree of Divine Majesty must stand fast against the gates of hell.
I confess that mankind has a free will, but it is to milk kine, to build houses, etc., and no further; for so long as a man is at ease and in safety, and is in no want, so long he thinks he has a free will, which is able to do something; but when want and need appear, so that there is neither meat, drink, nor money, where is then free will? It is utterly lost, and cannot stand when it comes to the pinch. Faith only stands fast and sure, and seeks Christ. Therefore faith is far another thing than free will; nay, free will is nothing at all, but faith is all in all. Art thou bold and stout, and cast thou carry it lustily with thy free will when plague, wars, and times of death and famine are at hand? No: in time of plague, thou knowest not what to do for fear; thou wishest thyself a hundred miles off. In time of dearth thou thinkest: Where shall I find to eat? Thy will cannot so much as give thy heart the smallest comfort in these times of need, but the longer thou strivest, the more it makes thy heart faint and feeble, insomuch that it is affrighted even at the rushing and shaking of a leaf. These are the valiant acts our free will can achieve. Some new divines allege, that the Holy Ghost works not in those that resist him but only in such as are willing and give consent thereto, whence it would appear that free will is also a cause and helper of faith, and that consequently faith alone justifies not, and that the Holy Ghost does not alone work through the word, but that our will does something therein.
But I say it is not so; the will of mankind works nothing at all in his conversion and justification; Non est efficiens causa justificationis sed materialis tantum. It is the matter on which the Holy Ghost works (as a potter makes a pot out of clay), equally in those that resist and are averse, as in St. Paul. But after the Holy Ghost has wrought in the will of such resistants, then he also manages that the will be consenting thereunto.
They say and allege further, that the example of St. Paul�s conversion is a particular and special work of God, and therefore cannot be brought in for a general rule. I answer: even like as St. Paul was converted just so are all others converted; for we all resist God, but the Holy Ghost draws the will of mankind, when he pleases, through preaching.
Even as no man may lawfully have children, except in a state of matrimony, though many married people have no children, so the Holy Ghost works not always through the word but when it pleases him, so that free will does nothing inwardly in our conversion and justification before God, neither does it work our strength � no, not in the least, unless we be prepared and made fit by the Holy Ghost.
The sentences in Holy Scripture touching predestination, as, �No man can come to me except the Father draweth him,� seem to terrify and affright us; yet they but show that we can do nothing of our own strength and will that is good before God, and put the godly also in mind to pray. When people do this, they may conclude they are predestinated.
Ah! why should we boast that our free will can do ought in man�s conversion? We see the reverse in those poor people, who are corporally possessed of the devil, how he rends, and tears, and spitefully deals with them, and with what difficulty he is driven out. Truly, the Holy Ghost alone must drive them out, as Christ says: �If I, will the finger of God, do drive out devils, then no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.� As much as to say: If the kingdom of God shall come upon you, then the devil must first be driven out, for his kingdom is opposed to God�s kingdom as ye yourselves confess. Now the devil will not be driven but by devils, much less by me, or by man�s strength, but only by God�s spirit and power. Hence, if the devil be not driven out through God�s finger, then the kingdom of the devil subsists there; and where the devil�s kingdom is, there is not God�s kingdom.
And again, so long as the Holy Ghost comes not into us, we are not only unable to do anything good, but we are, so long, in the kingdom of the devil, and do what is pleasing unto him What could St. Paul have done to be freed from the devil, though all the people on earth had been present to help him? Truly, nothing at all; he was forced to do and suffer that which the devil, his lord and master, pleased until our blessed Savior Christ came, with divine power.
Now, if he could not be quit of the devil, corporally from his body, how should he be quit of him spiritually from his soul, through his own will, strength, and power? For the soul was the cause why the body was possessed, which also was a punishment for sin. It is a matter more difficult to be delivered from sin than from the punishment; the soul is always heavier possessed than the body; the devil leaves to the body its natural strength and activity; but the soul he bereaves of understanding, reason, and power as we see in possessed people.
Let us mark how Christ pictures forth the devil. He names him a strong giant that keeps a castle; that is, the devil has not only the world in possession, as his own kingdom, but he fortifies it in such a way that no human creature can take it from him and he keeps it also in such subordination that he does even what he wills to have done. Now, as much as a castle is able to defend itself against the tyrant which is therein, even so much is free will and human strength able to defend itself against the devil; that is, no way able at all. And even as the castle must first be overcome by a stronger giant, to be won from the tyrant, even so mankind must be delivered and regained from the devil through Christ. Hereby, we see plainly that our doings and righteousness can help nothing towards our deliverance, but only by God�s grace and power.
O! how excellent and comfortable a gospel is that, in which our Savior Christ shows what a loving heart he bears towards us poor sinners, who are able to do nothing at all for ourselves to our salvation.
For as a silly sheep cannot take heed to itself, that it err not, nor go astray, unless the shepherd always leads it; yea, and when it has erred, gone astray, and is lost, cannot find the right way, nor come to the shepherd, but the shepherd must go after it, and seek until he find it, and when he has found it, must carry it, to the end it be not scared from him again, go astray, or be torn by the wolf: so neither can we help ourselves, nor attain a peaceful conscience, nor outrun the devil, death, and hell, unless Christ himself seek and call us through his Word; and when we are come unto him, and possess the true faith, yet we of ourselves are not able to keep ourselves therein, nor to stand, unless he always hold us up through his Word and spirit, seeing that the devil everywhere lies lurking for us, like a roaring lion, seeking to devour us.
I fain would know how he who knows nothing of God, should know how to govern himself; how he, who is conceived and born in sin, as we all are, and is by nature a child of wrath, and God�s enemy, should know how to find the right way and to remain therein, when, as Isaiah says: �We can do nothing else but go astray.� How is it possible we should defend ourselves against the devil, who is a prince of this world, and we his prisoners, when, with all our strength, we are not able so much as to hinder a leaf or a fly from doing us hurt? I say, how may we poor miserable wretches presume to boast of comfort, help, and counsel against God�s judgment, his wrath and everlasting help, when we cannot tell which way to seek help, or comfort, or counsel, no, not in the least of our corporal necessities, as daily experience teaches us, either for ourselves or other?
Therefore, thou mayest boldly conclude, that as little as a sheep can help itself, but must needs wait for all assistance from the shepherd, so little, yea, much less, can a human creature find comfort, help and advice of himself, in cases pertaining to salvation, but must expect and wait for these only from God, his shepherd, who is a thousand times more willing to do every good thing for his sheep than any temporal shepherd for his.
Now, seeing that human nature, through original sin, is wholly spoiled and perverted, outwardly and inwardly, in body and soul, where is then free will and human strength? Where human traditions, and the preachers of works, who teach that we must make use of our own abilities, and by our own works obtain God�s grace, and so, as they say, be children of salvation? O! foolish, false doctrine! � for we are altogether unprepared with our abilities, with our strength and works, when it comes to the combat, to stand or hold out. How can that man be reconciled to God, whom he cannot endure to hear, but flies from to a human creature, expecting more love and favor from one that is a sinner, than he does from God. Is not this a fine free will for reconciliation and atonement?
The children of Israel on Mount Sinai, when God gave them the Ten Commandments, showed plainly that human nature and free will can do nothing, or subsist before God; for they feared that God would suddenly strike among them, holding them merely for a devil, a hangman, and a tormentor, who did nothing but fret and fume.
I believe Martin Luther understood Paul better than many of us realize.Martin Luther tried as many works as possible to get in god's favor.Then he had his damascus road experience. Like Paul who thought he was doing what god wanted- works, both saw the truth. They made a decsion to accept Christ.
This article explains PhilipJohn deep hatred for Calvinistic Principles,Although he says hes not a follower of men,PhilipJohn philosophy lines up perfectly with that of Finney,and he has mentioned him many times,The article is long,but,worth reading for everyone who wants to know how the doctrines of grace were pushed out of the church,and where we get the modern day"easy beleiveism,Alter calls,make a decision for Christ type of theology that many Christians today think was always the norm.
The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney
by Dr. Michael Horton
No single man is more responsible for the distortion of Christian truth in our age than Charles Grandison Finney. His "new measures" created a framework for modern decision theology and Evangelical Revivalism. In this excellent article, Dr. Mike Horton explains how Charles Finney distorted the important doctrine of salvation.
Jerry Falwell calls him "one of my heroes and a hero to many evangelicals, including Billy Graham." I recall wandering through the Billy Graham Center some years ago, observing the place of honor given to Charles Finney in the evangelical tradition, reinforced by the first class in theology I had at a Christian college, where Finney�s work was required reading. The New York revivalist was the oft-quoted and celebrated champion of the Christian singer Keith Green and the Youth With A Mission organization. He is particularly esteemed among the leaders of the Christian Right and the Christian Left, by both Jerry Falwell and Jim Wallis (Sojourners� magazine), and his imprint can be seen in movements that appear to be diverse, but in reality are merely heirs to Finney�s legacy. From the Vineyard movement and the Church Growth Movement to the political and social crusades, televangelism, and the Promise Keepers movement, as a former Wheaton College president rather glowingly cheered, "Finney, lives on!"
That is because Finney�s moralistic impulse envisioned a church that was in large measure an agency of personal and social reform rather than the institution in which the means of grace, Word and Sacrament, are made available to believers who then take the Gospel to the world. In the nineteenth century, the evangelical movement became increasingly identified with political causes-from abolition of slavery and child labor legislation to women�s rights and the prohibition of alcohol. In a desperate effort at regaining this institutional power and the glory of "Christian America" (a vision that is always powerful in the imagination, but, after the disintegration of Puritan New England, elusive), the turn-of-the century Protestant establishment launched moral campaigns to "Americanize" immigrants, enforce moral instruction and "character education." Evangelists pitched their American gospel in terms of its practical usefulness to the individual and the nation.
That is why Finney is so popular. He is the tallest marker in the shift from Reformation orthodoxy, evident in the Great Awakening (under Edwards and Whitefield) to Arminian (indeed, even Pelagian) revivalism. evident from the Second Great Awakening to the present. To demonstrate the debt of modern evangelicalism to Finney, we must first notice his theological departures. From these departures, Finney became the father of the antecedents to some of today�s greatest challenges within evangelical churches, namely, the church growth movement, Pentecostalism and political revivalism.
Who is Finney?
Reacting against the pervasive Calvinism of the Great Awakening, the successors of that great movement of God�s Spirit turned from God to humans, from the preaching of objective content (namely, Christ and him crucified) to the emphasis on getting a person to "make a decision."
Charles Finney (1792-1875) ministered in the wake of the "Second Awakening," as it has been called. A Presbyterian layover, Finney one day experienced "a mighty baptism of the Holy Ghost" which "like a wave of electricity going through and through me ... seemed to come in waves of liquid love." The next morning, he informed his first client of the day, "I have a retainer from the Lord Jesus Christ to plead his cause and I cannot plead yours. "Refusing to attend Princeton Seminary (or any seminary, for that matter). Finney began conducting revivals in upstate New York. One of his most popular sermons was "Sinners Bound to Change Their Own Hearts."
Finney�s one question for any given teaching was, "Is it fit to convert sinners with?" One result of Finney�s revivalism was the division of Presbyterians in Philadelphia and New York into Arminian and Calvinistic factions. His "New Measures" included the "anxious bench" (precursor to today�s altar call), emotional tactics that led to fainting and weeping, and other "excitements," as Finney and his followers called them.
Finney�s Theology?
One need go no further than the table of contents of his Systematic Theology to learn that Finney�s entire theology revolved around human morality. Chapters one through five are on moral government, obligation, and the unity of moral action; chapters six and seven are "Obedience Entire," as chapters eight through fourteen discuss attributes of love, selfishness, and virtues and vice in general. Not until the twenty-first chapter does one read anything that is especially Christian in its interest, on the atonement. This is followed by a discussion of regeneration, repentance, and faith. There is one chapter on justification followed by six on sanctification. In other words, Finney did not really write a Systematic Theology, but a collection of essays on ethics.
But that is not to say that Finney�s Systematic Theology does not contain some significant statements of theology.
First, in answer to the question, "Does a Christian cease to be a Christian, whenever he commits a sin?", Finney answers:
"Whenever he sins, he must, for the time being, cease to be holy. This is self-evident. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned; he must incur the penalty of the law of God ... If it be said that the precept is still binding upon him, but that with respect to the Christian, the penalty is forever set aside, or abrogated, I reply, that to abrogate the penalty is to repeal the precept, for a precept without penalty is no law. It is only counsel or advice. The Christian, therefore, is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys or Antinomianism is true ... In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground (p. 46)."
Finney believed that God demanded absolute perfection, but instead of that leading him to seek his perfect righteousness in Christ, he concluded that "... full present obedience is a condition of justification. But again, to the question, can man be justified while sin remains in him? Surely he cannot, either upon legal or gospel principles, unless the law be repealed ... But can he be pardoned and accepted, and justified, in the gospel sense, while sin, any degree of sin, remains in him? Certainly not" (p. 57).
Finney declares of the Reformation�s formula simul justus et peccator or "simultaneously justified and sinful," "This error has slain more souls, I fear, than all the Universalism that ever cursed the world." For, "Whenever a Christian sins he comes under condemnation, and must repent and do his first works, or be lost" (p.60).
Finney�s doctrine of justification rests upon a denial of the doctrine of original sin. Held by both Roman Catholics and Protestants, this biblical teaching insists that we are all born into this world inheriting Adam�s guilt and corruption. We are, therefore, in bondage to a sinful nature. As someone has said, "We sin because we�re sinners": the condition of sin determines the acts of sin, rather than vice versa. But Finney followed Pelagius, the fifth-century heretic, who was condemned by more church councils than any other person in church history, in denying this doctrine.
Finney believed that human beings were capable of choosing whether they would be corrupt by nature or redeemed, referring to original sin as an "anti-scriptural and nonsensical dogma" (p.179). In clear terms, Finney denied the notion that human beings possess a sinful nature (ibid.). Therefore, if Adam leads us into sin, not by our inheriting his guilt and corruption, but by following his poor example, this leads logically to the view of Christ, the Second Adam, as saving by example. This is precisely where Finney takes it, in his explanation of the atonement.
The first thing we must note about the atonement, Finney says, is that Christ could not have died for anyone else�s sins than his own. His obedience to the law and his perfect righteousness were sufficient to save him, but could not legally be accepted on behalf of others. That Finney�s whole theology is driven by a passion for moral improvement is seen on this very point: "If he [Christ] had obeyed the Law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non of our salvation" (p.206)? In other words, why would God insist that we save ourselves by our own obedience if Christ�s work was sufficient? The reader should recall the words of St. Paul in this regard, "I do not nullify the grace of God�, for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing." It would seem that Finney�s reply is one of agreement. The difference is, he has no difficulty believing both of those premises.
That is not entirely fair, of course, because Finney did believe that Christ died for something�not for someone, but for something. In other words, he died for a purpose, but not for people. The purpose of that death was to reassert God�s moral government and to lead us to eternal life by example, as Adam�s example excited us to sin. Why did Christ die? God knew that "The atonement would present to creatures the highest possible motives to virtue. Example is the highest moral influence that can be exerted ... If the benevolence manifested in the atonement does not subdue the selfishness of sinners, their case is hopeless" (p.209). Therefore, we are not helpless sinners who need to,� be redeemed, but wayward sinners who need a demonstration of selflessness so moving that we will be excited to leave off selfishness. Not only did Finney believe that the "moral influence" theory of the atonement was the chief way of understanding the cross; he explicitly denied the substitutionary atonement, which
"assumes that the atonement was a literal payment of a debt, which we have seen does not consist with the nature of the atonement ... It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one" (p.217).
Then there is the matter of applying redemption. Throwing off Reformation orthodoxy, Finney argued strenuously against the belief that the new birth is a divine gift, insisting that "regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness to love or benevolence," as moved by the moral influence of Christ�s moving example (p.224). "Original sin, physical regeneration, and all their kindred and resulting dogmas, are alike subversive of the gospel, and repulsive to the human intelligence" (p.236).
Having nothing to do with original sin, a substitutionary atonement, and the supernatural character of the new birth, Finney proceeds to attack "the article by which the church stands or falls"� justification by grace alone through faith alone.
Distorting the Cardinal Doctrine of Justification
The Reformers insisted, on the basis of clear biblical texts, that justification (in the Greek, "to declare righteous," rather than "to make righteous") was a forensic (i.e., legal) verdict. In other words, whereas Rome maintained that justification was a process of making a bad person better, the Reformers argued that it was a declaration or pronouncement that had someone else�s righteousness (i.e., Christ�s) as its basis. Therefore, it was a perfect, once and-for-all verdict of right standing.
This declaration was to be pronounced at the beginning of the Christian life, not in the middle or at the end. The key words in the evangelical doctrine are "forensic" (legal) and "imputation" (crediting one�s account, as opposed to the idea of "infusion" of a righteousness within a person�s soul). Knowing all of this, Finney declares,
"But for sinners to be forensically pronounced just, is impossible and absurd... As we shall see, there are many conditions, while there is but one ground, of the justification of sinners ... As has already been said, there can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground 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."
To this, Finney replies: "The doctrine of imputed righteousness, or that Christ�s obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption." After all, Christ�s righteousness "could do no more than justify himself. It can never be imputed to us ... it was naturally impossible, then, for him to obey in our behalf " This "representing of the atonement as the ground of the sinner�s justification has been a sad occasion of stumbling to many" (pp.320-2).
The view that faith is the sole condition of justification is "the antinomian view," Finney asserts. "We shall see that perseverance in obedience to the end of life is also a condition of justification. Some theologians have made justification a condition of sanctification, instead of making sanctification a condition of justification. But this we shall see is an erroneous view of the subject." (pp.326-7).
Finney Today
As the noted Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield pointed out so eloquently, there are throughout history only two religions: heathenism, of which Pelagianism is a religious expression, and a supernatural redemption.
With Warfield and those who so seriously warned their brothers and sisters of these errors among Finney and his successors, we too must come to terms with the wildly heterodox strain in American Protestantism. With roots in Finney�s revivalism, perhaps evangelical and liberal Protestantism are not that far apart after all. His "New Measures," like today�s Church Growth Movement, made human choices and emotions the center of the church�s ministry, ridiculed theology, and replaced the preaching of Christ with the preaching of conversion.
It is upon Finney�s naturalistic moralism that the Christian political and social crusades build their faith in humanity and its resources in self-salvation. Sounding not a little like a deist, Finney declared, "There is nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature. It consists entirely in the right exercise of the powers of nature. It is just that, and nothing else. When mankind becomes truly religious, they are not enabled to put forth exertions which they were unable before to put forth. They only exert powers which they had before, in a different way, and use them for the glory of God." As the new birth is a natural phenomenon for Finney, so too a revival: "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."
The belief that the new birth and revival depend necessarily on divine activity is pernicious. "No doctrine," he says, "is more dangerous than this to the prosperity of the Church, and nothing more absurd" (Revivals of Religion [Revell], pp.4-5).
When the leaders of the Church Growth Movement claim that theology gets in the way of growth and insist that it does not matter what a particular church believes: growth is a matter of following the proper principles, they are displaying their debt to Finney.
When leaders of the Vineyard movement praise this sub-Christian enterprise and the barking, roaring, screaming, , and other strange phenomena on the basis that "it works" and one must judge its truth by its fruit, they are following Finney as well as the father of American pragmatism, William James, who declared that truth must be judged on the basis of "its cash-value in experiential terms."
Thus, in Finney�s theology, God is not sovereign, man is not a sinner by nature, the atonement is not a true payment for sin, justification by imputation is insulting to reason and morality, the new birth is simply the effect of successful techniques, and revival is a natural result of clever campaigns. In his fresh introduction to the bicentennial edition of Finney�s Systematic Theology, Harry Conn commends Finney�s pragmatism: "Many servants of our Lord should be diligently searching for a gospel that �works�, and I am happy to state they can find it in this volume."
As Whitney R. Cross has carefully documented, the stretch of territory in which Finney�s revivals were most frequent was also the cradle of the perfectionistic cults that plagued that century. A gospel that "works" for zealous perfectionists one moment merely creates tomorrow�s disillusioned and spent supersaints. Needless to say, Finney�s message is radically different from the evangelical faith, as is the basic orientation of the movements we see around us today that bear his imprint such as: revivalism (or its modern label. the Church Growth Movement), or Pentecostal perfectionism and emotionalism, or political triumphalism based on the ideal of "Christian America," or the anti-intellectual, and antidoctrinal tendencies of many American evangelicals and fundamentalists.
Not only did the revivalist abandon the doctrine of justification, making him a renegade against evangelical Christianity; he repudiated doctrines, such as original sin and the substitutionary atonement, that have been embraced by Roman Catholics and Protestants alike. Therefore, Finney is not merely an Arminian�, but a Pelagian. He is not only an enemy of evangelical Protestantism, but of historic Christianity of the broadest sort.
Of one thing Finney was absolutely correct: The Gospel held by the Reformers whom he attacked directly, and indeed held by the whole company of evangelicals, is "another gospel" in distinction from the one proclaimed by Charles Finney. The question of our moment is, With which gospel will we side?
(Reprinted by permission from Modern Reformation.)
Unless otherwise specified, all quotes are from Charles G. Finney, Finney�s Systematic Theology (Bethany, 1976).
Dr. Michael S. Horton is Member of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and cohost of the popular White Horse Inn radio program.
Tapes on: Theology of Glory Versus Theology of the Cross/ Reformation Theology vs. Evangelicalism
, and other strange phenomena on the basis that "it works" and one must judge its truth by its fruit, they are following Finney as well as the father of American pragmatism, William James, who declared that truth must be judged on the basis of "its cash-value in experiential terms."