And there it is . . . of course it seems like you misunderstand real calvinism as badly as Finney, so it’s not surprising that you’d side with him (in spite of his errors) over the misunderstandings of calvinism.

That’s all the time I have for this discussion. You have a good one too.

Propter hoc here.

You ask: “The question is how should we evangelize and minister. Should we do it like Finney or not?”

At times I say . . . yes, do it like Finney.

If I’m preaching to lost folks, I preach Christ crucified and call for them to close with Christ immediately and publicly. Before I close, I tell them if they have any questions, either they can come to the front at the invitation time or they can see me after the service. I always stress that Christ desires their immediate salvation. So I declare the gospel, spell out its terms, and call them to close with it.

Happily, Finney insisted that sinners could respond to the gospel when it came to them; and even though he had the machinery of freewill and depravity messed up, he had the principle of evangelism correct: He knew all things were ready and that all could come. He believed, and I think rightly so, that God’s callings are His enablings. With that notion, he went after sinners, and thousands of Presbyterians and Congregationalists found Christ (as well as untold numbers of drunkards, harlots, saloon keepers. lawyers, clergy, and business men).

Finney preached that sinners should “return from [their] ways and live.” But, then again, so did Ezekiel. Finney preached for results, and I believe he was wise in doing so. He preached for decisions, for people to decide immediately for Christ and to receive His salvation. He despised the idea that sinners had to “wait for the Holy Spirit” (as if He weren’t already striving with them through the gospel) or the notion that they must sense a certain “somethng” to know they had an interest in Christ before believing.

Finney didn’t tolerate the Calvinist claim that sinners had no self-determining power. He believed every sinner who came under the sound of the gospel was enabled by that very gospel to “return.” And, of course, he conducted his ministry accordingly. In his mind it was really quite simple: If the gospel not only frees men to believe and saves all who do, then all should immediately repent, all questions of depravity, freewill, and predestination aside.

Finney preached that sinners should “Repent and turn [themselves] from all their transgressions.” He completely (and correctly) dismissed the Calvinist theory that sinners must first be regenerated before they can repent. He scorned the concept of sinners “waiting at the pool of the ordinances” to be saved. He confronted many Calvinist wives’ fables, such as the idea that if a man wasn’t willing to be happily damned for the glory of God, then he couldn’t be saved. Finney had his problems, all right; but so did the Calvinists.

Finney preached that sinners should “cast away” their transgressions and “make [themselves] a new heart and a new spirit.” (But, again, so did Ezekiel.) He opposed the Calvinist notion that regeneration was secret and unconditional and that sinners were entirely passive in salvation. He sneered at the teaching that sinners should “wait for an effectual call” or “wait God’s good time” or “wait the day of His power.” To Finney those were simply Satanic devices to further darken men’s minds. As he saw it, sinners needn’t gather around the ordinances hoping to be regenerated. They could be regenerated immediately. And that view of evangelism shook New England.

Believing sinners could immediately respond to the gospel at the behest of the Spirit and word, Finney called men to instant repentance. This sent shockwaves through the nursery-born Calvinists and their cap-and-gown preachers. He never minced words. He called upon men to “turn [themselves] and live” and to “turn ye, turn ye from your evil way.” And he believed they could (and I am with him on that, though for different reasons). And God blessed his efforts. Obviously, He didn’t bless his error. But He did wonderfully visit the truth he preached.

I commend Finney’s approach and insistence that men can be and must be immediately saved and that there is no mysterious decree barring most from Heaven. But I would anchor such efforts on a better foundation.

Have a good one!

tjp

Hey, no speaking in tongues without interpretation!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Keith: So God never moves through the souless predestinarians? What about Whitefield?

TJP: No I don’t think Pelagianism is okay. I simply made an observation that, in the religious milieu of that day, God chose a Pelagian and not a Augustinian to drive a spiritual work that resulted in enormous spiritual blessing to untold thousands.

Keith: God can and does use whatever He wants. If He can use Balam’s ass, then I’m sure he can use any human. That’s really not what we’re debating here though. The question is how should we evangelize and minister. Should we do it like Finney or not? Just because God can use someone in error doesn’t mean I should perpetuate the error.

TJP: Funny, I once called that same area, “the frozen over district,” believing it represented the dreadful consequences of a long-held Calvinism.

Keith: The burned over district was, I believe, Finney’s own term for the area. Regardless, you continue to insist on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

You said: “Pelagianism is heresy. It is thoroughly unChristian. Even Roman Catholics don’t claim that man is born neutral and is able to independently work his way to holiness.”

I agree. I’m not defending Pelagianism. But in the context in which Finney ministered, God chose to use him even with his doctrinal flaws. Surely the Calvinists must have questioned why God would bless so little of the truth Finney had and by pass “all the truth” they had. Again, history is history, and God chose Finney–and not the Calvinists or Unitarians–to initate a great movement that would bring thousands to Christ and would rescue many from a souless predestinarianism.

Again, you said: “If you seriously think Pelagianism is ok just because you like the style and product of some of its practitioners — then you’ve once again made Bauder’s point.”

No I don’t think Pelagianism is okay. I simply made an observation that, in the religious milieu of that day, God chose a Pelagian and not a Augustinian to drive a spiritual work that resulted in enormous spiritual blessing to untold thousands. That’s not an endorsement of Pelagianism. But it is what God did. (By the way, God has used many heretics in church history.)

I’m not recommending Finney’s hybrid system of theology, but I am recognizing God used him and that He used him marvelously. I don’t need to embrace Calvinism to avoid Finneyism. It’s not necessary to slouch toward the former in order to get clear of the latter. Neither system is particularly attractive to me. I personally prefer something akin to the Cumberland Presbyterian soteriology, or the mediate view salvation.

You mentioned the “burned over district.” Apparently, you believe it accurately reflects and appropriately characterizes all revivalist efforts in central and upstate New York during Finney’s time there. Yet one Presbyterian historian, P. H. Fowler, cites several men concerning the “burned over district.”

“Central New York has since been the land of revivals. The dews of heaven and its copious showers have seemed to fall continuously upon it;” and Dr. Aiken, one of the eminent pastors with whom Finney labored in New York during the early years of his activity, wrote in 1871: “After forty years I am persuaded that it was the work of God;” and in 1856, Dr. Lansing, another of the pastors in the region to which Dr. Nevin refers, bore testimony that the influence of Finney’s revivals had continued till that time for good in every respect.”

(Funny, I once called that same area, “the frozen over district,” believing it represented the dreadful consequences of a long-held Calvinism.)

Have a good one!

tjp

Keith: You continue to lump all calvinists together inappropriately. Yes, the Old Side calvinists oppose the things you listed. The New Side does not and they do not identify all of those things as springing from Finney. The New Siders and the Old Schoolers (distinct from Old Siders) still usually maintain that Finney practiced them inappropriately and from a faulty theology.

TJP: Calvinists were in total meltdown in Finney’s day. A large number of their churches were simply the synogogues of Satan.

Keith: And what happened to those dowstream of Finney in his “Burned Over District”. Would you say Mormonism is a synagogue of Satan? Is that how Finneyism self-corrects? I said that things don’t happen in a vacuum. That’s different from holding that everything upstream is directly responsible for everything downstream. If you maintain that. Then Finney’s got a lot to answer for in the district.

TJP: Perhaps, in some strange sense, [Pelagianism is] better, but not the best, given the historical circumstances.

Keith: Pelagianism is heresy. It is thoroughly unChristian. Even Roman Catholics don’t claim that man is born neutral and is able to independently work his way to holiness. If you seriously think Pelagianism is ok just because you like the style and product of some of its practitioners — then you’ve once again made Bauder’s point.

TJP: It’s not necessary to limit our choices between dead orthodoxy or live heresy.

Keith: I agree. That’s why I’ll pass on Finney. I don’t have to choose him — or similar “revivalists” — or be left with dead orthodoxy. That’s also what Bauder appears to be saying. You pro-revivalists are the ones who seem to want to force a bifurcation.

TJP: that’s what Finney, to his credit, hit upon.

Keith: If that’s all he did, no one — including Bauder would have the slightest quible with him.

Lest I forget. I appreciate your acknowledging that not all the “new measures” were Finney’s creations. Unfortunately, Calvinists have so perfectly and negatively identified Finney with these things that he pretty much stands as the poster boy for them.

Calvinists were in total meltdown in Finney’s day. A large number of their churches were simply the synogogues of Satan. In many cases the preachers of those churches were either lost or thoroughly given to the “wait for the day of His power” nonsense. Unfortunately, Calvinism, being an anemic spiritual remedy, couldn’t act as its own “medicener.”

I say it again, I’m not a big critic of Finney. I’ll leave the criticism to the Calvinists and Unitarians. Again, in the main, I think he was an extraordinary man who preached powerfully and served fearlessly, an assessment, I believe, that was shared by many Calvinists in his own day. Finney’s ministry, while it had its questionable aspects, was certainly blessed by God and used of Him to raise many Calvinists (preachers and parishioners) to new life in Christ.

Keith, you continue to say that “Hyper Calvinism gave rise to the practices Finney opposed.” That’s only partly so. The bulk of Finney’s opposition to many of his “sensible measures” came from the Princetonians (or old school Calvinists), most of whom are not necessarily associated with hyper Calvinism.

If by “saving yourself” you mean sinners must believe in order to be regenerated and not regenerated in order to believe, then I join that noble band of “heretics” who early on declared that men must “save themselves” (Acts 2:40) by responding to the conviction of the Spirit (Acts 2:37) and embracing the gospel message, just as we find on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:.38-42)

You ask, “How is Pelagianism a better corrective than Unitarianism or Universalism?

Well, it’s not, at least in my way of thinking. Yet God chose to use Finney to bring new life to many, but He ignored the Unitarians and Universalists. Perhaps, in some strange sense, it’s better, but not the best, given the historical circumstances.

Again, you say, “So, as long as one preaches ‘powerfully’, it doesn’t matter what he preaches?”

Oh, no. But he did preach powerfully. And many of his messages were thoroughly Scriptural. Thousands of genuine converts could attest it. His enemies could attest it, and so could his friends. God often visited His preaching with an unusual unction. Even many Calvinists ultimately realized God was using Finney and consequently joined him in many of his campaigns. But make no mistake, Finney was a powerful servant, all theological flaws aside.

You query, “Is the solution live heresy?”

No, not at all. But it’s not dead orthodox Calvinism, either. It’s Christ crucified! Hold up Christ! Preach Christ! Invite every sinner within earshot to close with Him immediately, telling them they have a provision for their sins and that He died for them–specifically, and not simply some men somewhere.

It’s not necessarily to limit our choices between dead orthodoxy or live heresy. We can simply proclaim Christ crucified, as Paul did to the Corinthians, informing them, while they were still in their unsaved state, Christ died for them specifically (1 Cor. 15:1-4). That’s the cure. And that’s what Finney, to his credit, hit upon.

Have a good one!

tjp

Keith: Hyper Calvinism gave rise to the practices Finney opposed. It was a harmful theology.

TJP: I’m not privy to Finney’s motives, and I’m not entirely sure why he did what he did.

Keith: Then read a little Finney. He was pretty open about his motives.

TJP: Every Calvinist believes God should be worshipped in a certain manner and crafts his service and ministry toward that end. Isn’t that manipulation?

Keith: No, that is not manipulation.

TJP: When you say, “Finney’s measures (not the superficial similarities to the practices of others) were a PART of his message,” I say, So are every Calvinist’s!

Keith: Yes. And, their message is not that man can save himself.

TJP: You say, “Again, it is not true that ‘The Calvinists’ opposed every one of these new measures, as TJ claims.” Sorry, but you’re dead wrong. Calvinists, by an large (especially the dead orthodox Calvinists) opposed him viciously.

Keith: Yes calvinists opposed Finney. I didn’t say otherwise. I said that not all groups of calvinists opposed every thing in the list of measures that you provided.

TJP: Finney confronted Calvinism because he saw the damage it did; and, in many respects, he set out to correct it, realizing it’s not a self-correcting system. However, when it does attempt self-correction, it usually spawns another “ism,” like Unitarianism or Universalism.

Keith: And how is Pelagianism a better corrective than Unitarianism or Universalism?

TJP: I think he was an extraordinary man who preached powerfully and served fearlessly.

Keith: So, as long as one preaches “powerfully”, it doesn’t matter what he preaches?

TJP: Dead orthodoxy reigned everywhere.

Keith: Is the solution live heresy?

Just got back from church. Enjoyed some new measures today. Great service! All to the glory of God!!!

I agree. Finney’s “new measures” are laughable, petty, and absurd. But what do you make of a theology that gave rise to such practices as Finney opposed? As you said, things “don’t occur in a vaccum.”

I’m not privy to Finney’s motives, and I’m not entirely sure why he did what he did. Perhaps he was less than sterling in his designs, yet it appears his “new measures” were necessary, even if sometimes abused. Not surprisingly, even today many Finney bashers practice his innovations, or things built upon them.

I’m a freewiller, though not of the Finney variety. And I count as abominable the Calvinistic practice of “waiting for the day of His power” (something Finney also found repugnant). I believe Paul is correct when he says, “Behold, now is the day of salvation,” which explodes the Calvinistic myth of “the day of His power” (whenever that may be). More accurately, the day of His power is, according to Scripture, RIGHT NOW (2 Cor. 6:2).

If Finney was a manipulator, so is every Calvinist. Every Calvinist believes God should be worshipped in a certain manner and crafts his service and ministry toward that end. Isn’t that manipulation? If manipulation is always evil, then the Calvinists are as damned as the Arminians.

When you say, “Finney’s measures (not the superficial similarities to the practices of others) were a PART of his message,” I say, So are every Calvinist’s! And when you say, “His measures only made sense — to HIM not just his opponents — because of his view of human nature and the nature of the atonement.” Well, that’s true enough. After all, what expressions of freewill make any sense to any fatalist, necessitarian or determinist?

You say, “Again, it is not true that ‘The Calvinists’ opposed every one of these new measures, as TJ claims.” Sorry, but you’re dead wrong. Calvinists, by an large (especially the dead orthodox Calvinists) opposed him viciously. Obviously not EVERY Calvinist opposed Finney because many supported him. But the MAJORITY did oppose his new measures, and the literature of the day confirms it.

And it wasn’t just the hyper-Calvinists who opposed Finney. It was the consistent Calvinists, those who took their Calvinism to its logical conclusion. Finney confronted Calvinism because he saw the damage it did; and, in many respects, he set out to correct it, realizing it’s not a self-correcting system. However, when it does attempt self-correction, it usually spawns another “ism,” like Unitarianism or Universalism.

I’m not a big critic of Finney. I’ll leave that to the extreme Calvinists (Emmonites), Unitarians, dead orthodox preachers, and unsaved church members who savaged him mercilessly in the public press of his day. In the main, I think he was an extraordinary man who preached powerfully and served fearlessly.

Of course we can see why Finney was attacked for his manner of ministry. After all, he often preached without notes and rarely read his sermons, which were both huge taboos in Calvinist New England. He flouted New England pulpit decorum, and that was inexcusable. In that day, it wasn’t good form to “preach from the cuff.”

Not only was he chided by the New England “divines” for instituting the ungodly practice of sitting during prayer and standing during singing (the exact opposite form prevailed in New England during his time), but he was viciously attacked for reading prayer requests from the pulpit before the service, an unheard of innovation, as we’ve previously noted.

Let me close by saying this: During the days of Finney there were many problems among the Calvinist clergy, especially among the Presbyterians and Congregationalists. The most serious problem was that many were unsaved. Dead orthodoxy reigned everywhere. And there was a deep cry for converted preachers. Many of the Tennent men “complained of the dead orthodoxy of the churches, of the lack of genuine piety in the ministry, and of the great need of converted ministers.”

This same concern was echoed by Charles Finney, who often complained that many of the preachers he met were lost and had no vital testimony for Christ. The Calvinist system had produced an entirely new category of unregenerate elect, those who were waiting for the “day of God’s converting power,” a day which many never came for many.

Interestingly, during the ministries of the Tennents, Whitefield, and Finney, many predestinarian preachers were raised from the coffin of Calvinism into the salvation of Christ. One man wrote about the spiritual condition of many in those days, “No inconsiderable portion of the ministers, and multitudes of church members, were ignorant of the gospel as an inward and spiritual power”

Such may be a harsh judgment, but the observations of many of the leading preachers of that day support it. New England had its troubles. And Calvinism was at the heart of them.

Have a good one!

tjp

Keith and Tracy,

It appears your posts crossed each other in the darkness of cyberspace. I’ll let you sort out the counters to each other!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3