THE SAVIOR LIFTED UP & FAITH

RnMomof7 | 9/7/01 | Charles Finney

[George W. Bush]

Sorry. Forgot to demonstrate the capital Greek letters. Perhaps RnMom can confirm if it works on her Mac with Netscape.

Α = Α
Ω = Ω

Α Ω

[George W. Bush]

Personally, from what I know of them both, I find Finney far more offensive and dangerous than Wesley.

If you anwer RnMom on the subject of Finney, perhaps you could indicate which one is worse from the your perspective of an American Calvinist. I'd be interested to judge how you guage the historical impact of both here in America.

[George W. Bush]

As I explained off the thread to GW,I don't know anything about Finneys Theology... In fact, this is entirely true. As I recall the exchange some months back, I called you a Finneyite Nazarene and did my best to make it sound bad. However, if one looks at the web sites with URLs like www.I-hate-Calvin.com, you'll notice that there is a lot of Finney material on such sites and relatively little material by Wesley. Finney is the champion of the militant Wesleyans. And I think that's probably a little hard for you and many other Wesleyans to even imagine. For many American Calvinists, e.g. Baptists, Finney was the greater problem, especially when you see how his influence spread out through other denominations.

This was a good sermon...now you may not agree with it,but I promise not to call you a heretic *grin* We're never going to make a good Calvinist out of you with an attitude like that!   ; )

[RnMomof7]

This was a good sermon...now you may not agree with it,but I promise not to call you a heretic *grin*

We're never going to make a good Calvinist out of you with an attitude like that! ; )

LOL..I am so proud of my ignorance GW..We have a Christian school in our area named for Finney.....thats it..I have no clue as to his theological stand...I have a reference site I use that has the works of several different preachers.. Some of his is on there.

I was looking for something that wasnt Wesley...so I read this and thought it could generate discussion if a troublemaker like you really READ it :>))

Seems like the kind of thing each person could bring his own theology to and find something to think about..

I have now defended my selection as well as I can..and fully expect to be told I am damned for my choice ..

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

BUMP FOR GOD

[RnMomof7]

It shows on my Mac/Netscape..but GW I am so computer dumb I would have no clue how to actually do it..would I need to know the greek letter? It wouldnt be a true "translator"??

[RnMomof7]

I need to ammend that ..I read it as Alpha and Omega..not the greek letters..sorry I was in la la land..it is late

[Sola Sola]

GW...If God had predestined this,why did Jesus need to ask who it was that touched Him?

I'm not certain we can answer that.

I like your stuff, GW.

My own answer would be that as in many other similar instances, he is asking the hearer to truly question why they have placed there trust in him. Is it truly because you were called of GOD to do it.

Remember that in his HUMAN nature, the Lord Jesus Christ has laid ASIDE his divine nature. Including his omniscience.

His only focus is that of obeying his Father --- which means his Cross.

In all his speech, at least for me, there is a reference to his Cross. And what he will accomplish by that Cross. Which includes the gift of the Spirit.

He understands all of that. And he is delighted to see one of the beneficiaries of his Sacrifice. I am sure.

Thank you, GW, for your comments.

Sola Gratia

[George W. Bush]

I looked around a bit for some Reformed critiques on Finney. You can take them with a grain of salt. Some of the quotes from his Systematic Theology are pretty devastating. I don't think you'll like them too much from the orthodox scriptural views you generally hold. Personally, I'm not too sure that Mr. Wesley would have embraced Finney and his notions. I sure hope Uriel doesn't take too much offense at a Finney sermon. Finney was in many ways the forerunner of the apostasy in the mainline Presbyterian churches which Uriel stands against as an Orthodox. A lot of the rot started with Finney.

From Google:

The Legacy of Charles Finney

A rather general survey from the Confessing Evangelical (conservative) viewpoint.


A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: How Charles Finney's Theology Ravaged the Evangelical Movement.

Extremely negative toward Finney, calls him a heretic, documents his unorthodox theology. This site is Calvinist and doesn't care much for Wesley either but has links to polite and good quality Wesleyan sites and finds some merit in the Wesleys, seeing them as mere Arminians with a certain place in evangelicalism and notes with approval Wesley's upholding of the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith. But Johnson has no sympathy at all for Finney as a Pelagian, placing him in the Unorthodox section of Church History and in the Really Bad Theology section of his links. The pictures of Finney on this site are downright demonic.


Charles Finney vs. The Westminster Confession-Michael S. Horton

For a broad perspective of Finney's times and historical influence, I'd have to recommend this one more than the others. Horton does a good job here on the theology, Calvinists vs. Finneyites, the revivals and Finney's role (and failure). The closing section on Finney's legacy shows why any conservative Presbyterian, any Calvinist fir that matter, can have much love for Finney. Note the situation of Machen in the wake of the modernists Beecher and Finney.

---

Beck, I thought I'd include this from Johnson's Arminian page in the Hall of Church History. The page has links to pro-Wesley and anti-Wesley and just theological comparison with Calvinists. Pretty fair-minded for a web site whose owner is a very stalwart and well-educated Calvinist. This following table from that page lays out very briefly the really essential details of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism and gives a brief characterization of Wesley's work without offering undue antagonism toward Wesleyans. Notice that Arminius was Beza's student. And notice particularly Johnson's description of Wesley and the Nazarene churches. I actually rather like this summary overall. Johnson is steadfast as a Calvinist but doesn't offer any unnecessary offense toward Wesley. But Johnson has some real venom for Finney (see above).

The Arminians

Arminianism derives its name from Jacobus Arminius, Professor of Divinity at Leyden University in Holland at the turn of the seventeenth century. Arminius had studied theology under Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor. Beza was one of the stronger proponents of the Reformed doctrine of predestination. But Arminius's theology represented a retreat from this position. In some ways, Arminius's theology was actually a return to the position taken by Roman Catholicism at the Council of Trent. Naturally, Arminianism stirred heated controversy in the Reformed churches.
         Arminius died in 1609, almost a decade before the controversy over his teachings peaked. That occurred in 1618, when a group of the late professor's followers, known as the Remonstrants, issued a protest in the form of Five Articles to the Reformed Church of Holland. Those articles were condemned by the Synod of Dordt in 1619. The synod's five-point reply was an article-by-article refutation of the Remonstrants. (The position defined by the Synod has come to be known popularly as "the five points of Calvinism," though the five points were actually a response the Arminian Articles. Calvin himself never systematized his doctrine into five points).
The Canons of the Synod of Dordt thus constituted the Reformation's official reply to the Remonstrants. The Remonstrants were expelled from the Reformed Church, and Arminianism was tagged as a deviant doctrine. Far from dealing a crushing blow to the movement, however, the Synod of Dordt merely became the starting point for the underground spread of the doctrine. Today Arminianism is surely the majority view in Protestant churches.
         There are many strains of Arminianism. The classic Arminianism of the Remonstrants had much in common with semi-pelagianism (a compromise position between the radical free-will doctrine of Pelagius and the strong predestinarian views of Augustine). The tendencies of the Remonstrants and those who followed them were barely evangelical. In the eighteenth century, John Wesley adopted Arminian doctrine and refined it with a strong evangelical emphasis on the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith. Wesley's variety of evangelical Arminianism survives today in the Churches of the Nazarene and other conservative Wesleyan groups. Less evangelical varieties of Arminianism range all the way from the pietism of the Holiness movement to the Socinianism of liberal denominations.

So, Beck, as you no doubt surmise, probably the single briefest statements of distinctives that would adequately describe the differences between the various groups is the following:

• Pelagians: belief and salvation is all due to man (essentialy a complete denial of God's action)
• Semi-Pelagians/Arminians: Synergism is the key word here. Salvation offered by God but man takes some action to receive it. This group includes such people as Free-will Baptists, Methodists and other Wesleyans, liberal Protestants like Presbyterians and Congregationalists. Naturally, though they deny it, it does include the church of Rome.
• Calvinists: Following upon the views of Augustine, this group is Monergistic and believes in the complete sovereignty of God. Calvinists essentially believe that by the time man becomes capable of making a meaningful spiritual choice, God has done all the work of salvation already. Naturally, our position is essentially Dordtian and based around the TULIP. This group includes conservative varieties of Reformed or Calvinistic Baptists, Orthodox and other traditional Presbyterians, certain other mostly extinct denominations. Naturally, Calvinists consider the mainline Protestant denominations apostate because they have forsaken Luther's and Calvin's position, particularly on predestination, the real battleground of the Reformation.

[RnMomof7]

Thanks for the links GW..I am taking a class in Church history starting Monday...bet ya there will be a paper and wanna bet what topic I will select?....

[RnMomof7]

BTW I peeked at the page on Finney..nasty picture of the man..I read the first couple of lines and see why Uriel may not "care" for him...I will read all the links in the am

[George W. Bush]

I like your stuff, GW.

My own answer would be that as in many other similar instances, he is asking the hearer to truly question why they have placed there trust in him. Is it truly because you were called of GOD to do it. Your remarks are too kind. I hope I didn't go too far beyond limits of permissible speculation in my remarks. It does seem to me that we are never not entitled to teach such things as doctrine but that each of us, if we really grapple with the entire plan of creation and salvation, must somehow form an opinion on a few of these matters not directly shown in scripture. Like the real nature of the relationship between the Father and His Son and how both men and angels fit into that all-important relationship. I would never want to see such specualtion taught as doctrine though, either mine or anyone else's. And yet, some situations arise from other doctrine which do seem to require some sort of assumption or working explanation if only to put our curiousity at rest so it doesn't become a weakness in our faith. I guess the only thing to do is hold one's faith strongly and warn anyone who reads such speculative ideas that you are skating onto very thin ice.

Remember that in his HUMAN nature, the Lord Jesus Christ has laid ASIDE his divine nature. Including his omniscience. I guess I'd like to see a plain statement of Christ's omniscince, particularly His omniscience with regard to who will become members of His flock. Perhaps I'm just not a good enough Bible student. I'm aware of a mention of the Book of Life that might lend itself to this and I have heard it taught that Christ knew the names of each of us when He dies on the cross and that He died for each us, knowing us by name then. And yet, I struggle with this because the role of Jesus then becomes so close to that of the Father and not really a true human being. And I am convinced that the Father is the primary member of the Trinity. I know the many statements of the Father's omnisicence and knowledge of all events throughout eternity. But I don't know any such statement for Christ. Perhaps you could quote some scripture for me. I am aware of some of the speculation of, for instance, the Tubingen school among the Lutherans who held some rather strange views on this that gave to Christ such divine powers on earth that it would be difficult to imagine that He was also truly the Son of Man, a human being, as He so fondly claimed. And yet Jesus did prophesy in Matthew 16 and 17 and 20 many of the details of His own death in Jerusalem. Matthew 17 describes His foreknowledge of a coin in a fish's mouth before the fish was caught. In John 4, He knew specific details about a woman's life whom He had never met and He knew all about Nathaniel in John 1. So He did have some foreknowledge while here on earth. But I don't find anything comparable to the foreknowledge of the Father. And I'm not certain that we can find anywhere in scripture that He knows these things today as He sits at God's right hand. I think there is something eternal and very special but hidden about Their relationship. But I can't say exactly what I think that is. I just know that I don't find testimony in the scripture of any omniscience that Jesus has or had which is in any way comparable to that of the Father.

I do tend to believe that some portions of His divine nature were laid aside in this life. And that perhaps some were given to Him only when He ascended. Certainly, it is disquieting to realize that He was, before the time of creation, as the Father and the Spirit are, a pure spirit without physical substance. Then He was born to Mary and then had a physical body which died and was resurrected by the Father, somehow in a way that made it more difficult for His own disciples to recognize Him when He first returned. It is very strange and not something I think we can expect to explain. Some great scholars have tried and failed to do so convincingly. But it doesn't trouble my faith to know these things.

His only focus is that of obeying his Father --- which means his Cross.

In all his speech, at least for me, there is a reference to his Cross. And what he will accomplish by that Cross. Which includes the gift of the Spirit. I think about those things. And I sometimes consider that the Father took care to reassure the Son while He was on earth of His love and purpose for Jesus. I'm not saying that I think Jesus didn't know who He was. I'm saying that there are a few remarks and His call to the Father from the cross that indicate that even He had what appear to my reading something like the doubts any of us might suffer. Maybe doubt is the wrong word. Perhaps merely a need to be reassured of the Father's love and presence.

He understands all of that. And he is delighted to see one of the beneficiaries of his Sacrifice. I am sure. As I stated, I don't think He regrets the price He paid for us at the cross. I'm certain of it. I really believe He would save all mankind if only the Father would permit it. This is the idea that the Wesleyans and the other Arminians hold basically. And they never seem to fully grasp that we Calvinists fully share exactly this idea. Christ, because of His nature and love for us would save us all through His atonement. He is eager to do so. The Wesleyans are entirely right about the love of our Saviour for all mankind and His invititaion to all. He would redeem every last one of us if the Father would permit it. But that is not the Father's plan. And no one can become a sheep in the Shepherd's flock unless the Father gives that person to Christ to be one of His own. The Father is the one who decides who will come to Christ.

I enjoyed your post. Perhaps you could post something longer sometime for us to read. Perhaps we could get back on the surer footing of matters to which scripture testifies to more strongly. I'm a little nervous whenever I get on such thin ice. And yet, as I said, there are some things not spoken of directly in scripture which human beings have to have some explanation for. I'm sure that what I wrote could not possibly be entirely right. I only hope it wasn't entirely wrong. It seems to explain for me some of the things in the Word that might otherwise trouble me or leave me open to the lies of hell that we all hear whispered from time to time to assail our faith.

[George W. Bush]

Thanks for the links GW..I am taking a class in Church history starting Monday...bet ya there will be a paper and wanna bet what topic I will select?.... I love church and Bible history. I really envy you.

The title of your paper? I'm a afraid to even hazard a guess... ; )

You'll have to tell me in the morning.

[185JHP]

Interesting concepts raised on this thread: Was the Lord Jesus Christ's omnipotence limited or unlimited before his Resurrection? Did His statement on the cross "Today you will be with me in Paradise" reflect His omniscience, or was He saying "I'm 100% God and thus because of your faith, even though I haven't died the Atoneing death yet, I say "you're in!", and it was His predestining the salvation by His omnipotence? BTW what do you think He wrote on the ground when the Pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery? I like the idea that it was women's names - one name for each Pharisee...

[fortheDeclaration]

To George W.Bush-that was the same antiTrinitian nonsense that Uriel used before. Do you think the Father would deny anything to the Son?

But I know, that even now whatsover thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee'(Jn.11:22)

It is amazing how desperate you guys are to defend TULIP even to the point of attacking the Trinity itself!

And you guys claim to be defenders of 'orthodoxy'!

Now, when Uriel got called on it, he, ofcourse, stated that he was being 'misunderstood' in what he was saying.

Even so, come Lord Jesus

[fortheDeclaration]

To George W.Bush-The Father's 'sole sovereignity' as opposed to the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Gee, I always thought they were coequal? How about that!

Is that one of those 'scholastic formulations' that 'doc' claimed I was ignorant of?

And Calvin had Servitus burned at the stake for HIS definition of the Trinity!

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

[fortheDeclaration]

To George W. Bush-do you know what the Bible says regarding God's knowledge of the saved,

But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage'(Gal.4:9)

Thus, the 'elect' were without God(Eph.2:12), children of wrath(Eph.2:3), foreigners and strangers to the covenants of promise(Eph.2:12), and unknown to God(Gal.4:9) until they show up 'in Christ'(Ruckman, Commentarty series, Gal.p.129)

Even so, come Lord Jesus

[winslow]

I would say Jesus announcment to the sinner on the cross that he would be in Paradise that day was as Jesus elsewhere said "that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins".

Speaking of people being saved prior to Christs death, there are a number of scriptures which teach that the OT saints were justified bt faith as we are.
Seeing as justification is a judicial act whereby Christs righteousness is imputed to us (The roman doctrine of infused righteousness is unscriptural)then we can know that their justification was based on Jesus sacrifice although it had not occured at that point in time.

[jude24]

bump for a later read

[George W. Bush]

Was the Lord Jesus Christ's omnipotence limited or unlimited before his Resurrection? Well, when He was tempted by Satan, it was clear that He could call upon the angels to save Him. But did not. This was an indication of His vast and Godlike powers prior to the crucifixion even. So, the picture to me isn't entirely clear. But He certainly was granted the power to perform miracles. It seems to me from reading His prayers that these were performed through the power of the Father. But this is not, for me, a crucial matter.

Did His statement on the cross "Today you will be with me in Paradise" reflect His omniscience, or was He saying "I'm 100% God and thus because of your faith, even though I haven't died the Atoneing death yet, I say "you're in!", and it was His predestining the salvation by His omnipotence? I think He gave assurance and the thief was saved in much the same way as the woman who was healed by grasping His hem. The thief recognized as death approached him just exactly Who was being crucified next to him. And he believed with a saving faith in our Lord. And Jesus knew it just as He knew the woman was healed. To some extent, instances like these confirm our faith in Christ's nature as God and as man. I'd try to explain it better but I know I'd muck it up. There is a mystery in the Trinity that cannot be resolved by the minds of men, a real limit to man's knowledge of this. The heresies that have been founded upon such theological speculation should be a warning we heed when considering such matters.

BTW what do you think He wrote on the ground when the Pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery? I like the idea that it was women's names - one name for each Pharisee... I couldn't even guess, JHP. But it is not anything that should trouble anyone's faith. I suggest you ask Him when you meet Him at last. I have a strong suspicion that all our little lists of questions will completely vanish after just one look at Him.