Article on Finney Christianity today

In other words, Calvinists always see through the light of the Sovereignty of God AS DEFINED BY THEM. This results in making the scriptural offer of salvation to anyone who believes nullified by the Calvinist’s who believe that two opposing truths are possible in the scripture. Thus they miss the warning of Christ that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.

In order to cover this doctrinal weakness of their system they come up with totally unscriptural terms such as “outer calling” and “inner calling”.

Do they ever consider that since they hold that God is the Author of both “calls” He at best open to the charge of insincerity and at worse, out right deception? We call PEOPLE who do such things LIARS.

But not to worry, God is Sovereign, so even if He does wrong He is still right! Thus gushed Arthur Pink, intoxicated on the Sovereignty of God as defined by the Calvinists.

Finney was wrong on some things, but he had to overcome early indoctrination by the Calvinists. Those Christians of the day, fed only the dead, dry teachings of the Calvinists, found a well of living water in Finney’s preaching and thousands were brought to Christ before the unbelieving Calvinists’ very eyes. Believe it or not, some still question his ministry because he didn’t do it their way.

So Finney was wrong on some things. He’s wrong about the perseverance of the saints but the Calvinists don’t attack him on that because they are wrong on it as well!

God bless Finney and may God raise up men who will love Him as Finney did!

Dennis Clough

Welcome to visit my Site.
Allan Svensson, Sweden

Why does the revival tarry? It is because God’s
people tarry to obey the powerful command of
the Lord in Rev. 18:4. This is the most powerful
revival message of the Lord to his people in our time.
http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/INDEX.HTM

The coming revival, a nameless revival
http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/POWERFUL.HTM

Why was the Pentecostal Revival stopped?
http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/CRISIS.HTM

Thanks for pointing to those sources. I am not aware of Daniel Baker’s work, so I will look into that.

James

I was going to post, but I read your response to Thomas and if I may make a suggestion… post that response!

I too agree that Finney’s methods are long lasting and have corrupted SBC’s methodology/philosophy of ministry. I am pastoring a church and preached Sunday night on Finney’s ill use of the invitation system, which I think he promoted as a slap in the face to Calvinist.

The next day, during our deacon’s meeting they asked me about this and I explained the dangers. They concluded that this was a great system, and of course that’s the way we have always done it…! This system that was introduced many years ago is one implementation that was long lasting and damming at best!

(I know that it can be done right, even Spurgeon has invitations at times, but Finney’s way was disgusting. Even if it is not as bad as we think, it has morphed into something very dangerous and found its way in our SBC churches as the norm…)

And one other thing… I give my “amens” to Gordon, he is an archPelagian!

Yogi Taylor

I know that it could be perceived that Murray did not treat Finney fairly, but if you look at his writings, he deals with primary sources almost exclusively, especially Finney’s Memoirs and Lectures.

Regarding Finney’s over-reaction, he was adamantly against any doctrine that didn’t make salvation possible in the hands of men. If you are not saved, it is your fault. It you do not experience revival, it is because you did not want it enough. Shame on you, he would say. Therefore, his reactions would not be over Hyper-Calvinism as much as it would be simply over the doctrines divine sovereignty and regeneration of the Holy Spirit. The guiding principle for him was that God would not command you to do something which you were not able to accomplish, that there is a direct cause/effect relationship to salvation and revival whereby you can bring about the outcome you desire. I don’t see that as a reaction to Hyper-Calvinism but a rejection of total depravity and original sin (which is orthodox teaching).

Gavin,

I have to go and look back at my sources, but I think you are correct about the Graham quote. He esteemed Finney in the highest regard (if my memory serves me correctly).

It appears that you already alluded to Finney’s connection with Billy Graham…I guess I should read the whole thread.

I have noticed the same commendation of Finney in some of Ravenhill’s writing. You will also find the lauding of Finney in some of Tozer’s writing.

Both Ravenhill and Tozer were all about “revival.” While I have benefited much from both Tozer and Ravenhill, you can see how they’d have at least some affinity with Finney, if not theologically, at least in terms of their common interest in “revival.”

Tim,

Am I mistaken in thinking Billy Graham once said Finney was one of the greatest preachers of all time (paraphrase)???