Finney (Part 2)

Welcome to No Compromise Radio, a ministry coming to you from Bethlehem Bible Church in West Boylston. No Compromise Radio is a program dedicated to the ongoing proclamation of Jesus Christ, based on the theme in Galatians 2, verse 5, where the Apostle Paul said, but we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.

In short, if you like smooth, watered-down words to make you simply feel good, this show isn't for you. By purpose, we are first biblical, but we can also be controversial. Stay tuned for the next 25 minutes as we're called by the divine trumpet to summon the troops for the honor and glory of her King.

Here's our host, Pastor Mike Abendroth.

Charles Finney and the Problem of Pragmatic Revivalism

Welcome back to No Compromise Radio ministry. This is Mike Abendroth, and I think it's a Tuesday, so this means Steve Cooley's in the office, in the study, in the

Where else would I, in the sanctum? Well, I guess we can, the inner sanctum, how about that?

Is there some kind of dome of inner sanctum over us? Like a get-smart deal? Yeah, we're under the cone of silence. Cone of silence, that's right. Some of these pop culture things I've forgotten over time.

I don't know if that's bad memory or just a blessing from God. I don't know, but I'm a child of the 60s, so what can I tell you? I do like the Green Hornet. I don't know if the new movie's gonna be good, but I like that idea of Green Hornet kind of slick.

Yeah, very, very, very, yeah, it was one of my favorite shows. I think they made 13 episodes, but I digress. 13, wow.

Well, what we're going to do is we're gonna do a Cato on a person today.

Nobody. Even, if you guys are listening right now, you have any idea who Cato is, if you do, then drop us a line at. What is it? Who is the new Cato? I think it's probably gonna be Jet Li, since the old one was Bruce Lee,.

Now they have to have Jet Li as Cato. You think? I'm not sure. But you digress. We wanna talk about things on the radio that are interesting, but more than that, biblical. And so last Tuesday, we talked about a man named Charles Finney.

Most people love Finney, and I believe, and so does Steve, the reason why people love Charles Finney is that they've been taught things about Finney that are at best incomplete. And so we believe that Finney has hurt the gospel, hurt preaching, hurt methods in the church from altar calls to anxious benches, but he's hurt them more with his theology about God, Jesus, man, sin.

And so today we wanna talk about that interesting topic. Should you believe in the teachings of Charles Finney?

Can we just say something about anxious benches? Because I mean, I think this is something, because I don't even know if people, do people do anxious benches anymore? Not too much.

Basically what would happen, our day has a altar call, come up to the front. And what would happen back in those days, they would call people to the front, but a lot of times they would have the first two or three benches empty, kind of like you're saving the seats for a wedding and the wedding party sits here.

And so they come up to this bench for kind of extra prayer, extra talk, extra conversion, extra goading. And so that's what the anxious bench was. For those who were anxious about their salvation, they'd come sit on a bench.

I mean, can you imagine what that was like? You know, probably the preacher up there just kind of glaring at you, you know, the first couple rows kind of, and maybe, I don't know, I mean, if I were really wanting to motivate people, I'd probably just put all kinds of ants and stuff on that bench.

Ants in my pants bench. So Charles Finney, I believe that if you understand what he taught, you won't like him anymore. And what we're after is pure teaching. We're after you to study men and women of God who have been beneficial to the church, not somehow have hurt the church.

And I believe if you put Finney's teaching and what he's done on a scale and said, this is the bad side, this is the good side, by far, all the bad would outweigh any good he has done. To the extent that he preached accidentally the gospel and somebody got saved, well, I'm glad for that.

But what we're after is what did the man teach? Because if you understand how he had a Calvinistic background and then rejected all that old divinity, all that old kind of Calvinism, and then taught the new stuff, I think you won't like Finney.

Well, you know, and here's something to think about. I mean, some of you are probably listening and still have really never heard of Charles Finney. But I would Yeah, I would just say this, if you're at a church and you listen and you go, well, our church does that and we teach that, you really need to examine what's going on within the confines of that church.

Because if they're spiritual children of Finney, and we know there are many out there, that is a big, big issue, and it's much bigger than any aspect of church history.

And if your church does what Finney does, that is an altar call, well, we don't think you should leave that church. But if your church teaches what Finney teaches about man, sin, perseverance, justification, original sin, imputed righteousness, then you ought to leave that church.

Absolutely, absolutely.

The Atonement as Moral Example or Substitutionary Sacrifice

Just today, we were talking about how he viewed the work of Christ, and it's really just, it's shocking. Listen to what he says, and maybe Pastor Michael, give me some feedback on this, I hope he will.

He says, Finney asserted that we are only guilty and corrupt because we choose to sin. And he says, Christ's work on the cross couldn't have paid our debt, but could only serve as a moral example and influence to persuade us to repent and be obedient.

Now, listen to this quote. If he, talking about Jesus, had obeyed the law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a requirement of our salvation?

Well, there's so much wrong with that. How do you have 24 minutes in a local radio show to dissect the thing? Reminds me of when I was a kid and dissecting frogs, and all of a sudden you open up the frog and you see all these other things that are there.

More like when I'd be in the operating room and see people who have cancer and they open it up and there's so much cancer in the body, they don't even begin to take it out, they close you up and put you on chemo because you're dead in a month.

Here, we open up the corpse of Charles Finney's teaching and you see how much cancerous material is in there. Jesus's death on the cross was only a moral example. Friends, when you study the atonement, was Jesus's death an example of love?

Yes, but if it was only example of love, then you have the wrong view of the atonement. You have a moral government kind of example view. It's a Socinian view is what it is. Jesus did more than that. He paid for his children's sin, his people's sin on the cross by assuaging God's wrath, by drinking the cup of God's wrath to the fullest.

It wasn't just an example. There were other people who were crucified during Jesus's time.

Wouldn't they be example enough? Yeah, 30 ,000 other Jews. And an example for what? That we all should go to the cross and die? That we should lay down our lives physically? No, not at all. And if Jesus did not have to die that sort of death, it's pretty clear in scripture that he would not have.

Substitutionary atonement, I think along with justification because they're so tied together. If you miss those things, you pretty much miss it. But we've got this idea today, Steve, that's floating around, rearing its ugly head once again, that God the Father pouring out his wrath on the Son as one emergent heretic said, that's divine child abuse.

People just can't get it through their head, the anger of God and the holy wrath of God and the Son somehow punishing and being punished by the Father. Even evangelicals that God's really the mean one and Jesus gets the brunt of it.

The Father, Son, and Spirit, all three together, a triune God deciding this was the way for redemption.

Because they've so lost the right view, the biblical view, bless you.

Oh, I've never sneezed on No Compromise Radio.

I'm allergic to Phinney. We need a sneeze button there. Yeah, are there Phinney allergy pills? Maybe we can get some kind of picture for that. We want you to be allergic.

To the teachings of Charles Phinney. Sneeze powder. What would you say, Steve, if someone came along and said, I've got really a father in the faith, someone who's a hero in the faith, and he believes that original sin wasn't what the Bible teaches in Romans 5.

He believes that salvation is found in the will of man. He believed that substitutionary atonement was no good. He believed that justification by faith alone was some kind of moral fiction. He believed that you could manipulate people to come up to the front and that was equal to salvation.

What would you say about that person? Well, I would say, well, first of all, I always want to be nice because I just can't help myself. I am nice. But I would say, let's examine those teachings in the light of Scripture.

I mean, that's what we always, we encourage everybody at NoCompromiseRadio .com. We encourage everyone to examine every teacher by what Scripture says. And so when someone says to you, you know, well, you don't have original sin, what does the Bible say?

What does Romans 5 say? That in Adam, we've all sinned. We all fell in Adam. You know, what about substitutionary atonement, that Jesus died for our sins? Well, 2 Corinthians 5 .21 makes it very clear that God made him, Jesus, who knew no sin, to become sin on, to be the very essence of sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in him, in Christ.

That is substitution. God put his wrath on Jesus on the cross and gave us Christ's righteousness. That's imputation, that's accounting language, and that's what transpired. We don't have and cannot have any inherent or self-earned or self-chosen righteousness.

Yeah, but Finney said of that, quote, the doctrine of an imputed righteousness are that Christ's obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption, page 320 to 322 in his Systematic Theology book.

It's just nonsense. I don't know why people want to defend Finney so much. I think it's just this romantic idea of who they were taught in Sunday school. I really think that's the case because if they study, they will see the errors of Finney.

Now, Steve, I want to ask you this very important question because I think people could be confused. We are not after Finney because we think he's some kind of flaming Arminian. This is not, we're Calvinists and we don't like any Arminians.

Finney was not an Arminian. He was, I was gonna say he's worse than Arminian. Well, he is worse than Arminian. I think, for instance, Billy Graham, you and I may differ with some people, Steve, about what does he do with Roman Catholics on the stage and what did he say towards the end of his life and everything else, but I like the preaching of, short of the altar call, the preaching and the theology of Billy Graham, even though he's an Arminian.

I wouldn't put him in the camp of Finney, would you? No, you know what I used to really love? Of course, Billy doesn't do much in the way of TV interviews. I haven't seen him in a number of years. TBN interviews?

But if you see him on, if you ever saw him on Larry King or any of the other shows, he used to always take, whatever the question was, so who do you think's gonna win the pennant this year? And the next thing you would know, instead of him saying, well, it could be the Yankees.

I really like what they've done with their bullpen. The Red Sox have really improved their lineup. He'd say, well, you know what? Whoever wins the pennant, the one thing I know is that Jesus is coming back and that all men need to turn to him for salvation and we're all sinners.

And he would just go on and give the gospel and didn't matter what the question was, the answer was the gospel.

And it was the real gospel and it was not some kind of legal fiction gospel. We are not saying if you're an Arminian, you're a heretic. We are saying if you're Pelagian, a follower of the teachings of Finney, you are heretical.

You are a heretic because you don't understand sin and the Savior. And if you get sin and the Savior wrong, what does it matter that you get right?

And it was just amazing, you know, and doing a little bit of research for the show. Yes, we do a little bit of research. Our crack staff. Yeah, our crack staff. Just seeing some of the evangelicals who defend Finney, and I, you know, not to name anybody, but just, and even reading their reasoning, I just, I searched in vain for someone who would say, well, Finney was right and here's the scripture that proves it.

Because it wasn't about scripture, it was about their opinion. Just like when you read Finney says, well, that's ridiculous fiction. He's talking about 2 Corinthians 5 .21. I mean, he should be, right?

He should be dissecting that scripture and telling you why it doesn't mean that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us and our sin as Christians, our sin was imputed to Christ. He doesn't do that.

Well, people should know better, yet they still continue to do this. In the Bicentennial Edition of Finney's Systematic Theology, Harry Kahn, C-O-N-N, no comment about that name, says this about Finney and his pragmatism.

Many servants of our Lord should be diligently searching for a gospel that works. And I am happy to state that they can find it in this volume.

Well, and I think that is pretty much the predominant issue. They look at the results and they go, well, Finney must've been right. Yeah, that's right.

His pragmatism, it worked. Look at all those people that came to the front that did all this stuff. Look at the numbers of Finney, of infinity. Look at that eight laying on its side.

Well, and you know what? I can almost hear people now, well, you know, Pastor Mike, you haven't led as many people to Christ as Charles Finney did, so who are you to say?

Well, that's true. And if you compare me to pretty much anyone, you're going to win and I'm going to lose. I am a no one, but whatever form I've been given by the Lord for the breadth of gospel ministry, I'm going to try to convince people that a theology that extols the glory of God and His grace and His mercy and His good pleasure, that's a better gospel than the one that says, it's up to you, you did it, you fell on your own, you can be saved on your own, you can believe in this Jesus on your own.

And at the end of the day, in glory, who will be singing the loudest? There are some Arminians, of course, that are going to be saved. There are some Calvinists who aren't going to be saved. It's Jesus is the one who saves.

It's not a system of theology, but it's Jesus who saves. And anybody who's saved in glory will be shouting like they were Calvinist. Jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe.

Amen, and you know, it also occurred to me while you were talking there that That was preaching. Yeah, preaching, sorry. While you were sharing. But, you know, if we're going to rate evangelists, now listen carefully, folks, while I'm saying this, if we're going to rate evangelists on the number of people who follow them after hearing their sermons, Jesus failed.

Well, He failed miserably. And one of the reasons why we don't look at big crowds and say, oh, that guy must be truthful is because of 2 Timothy 4, verse 3 and 4, many people follow. And if following means truth, then I guess Benny Hinn

He's nationwide, he's worldwide. I was talking to a brother from Kuwait the other day, and he was just saying how popular he is over there and how, you know, we know how popular he is in India and many places because he comes in and tells people what they want to hear.

It's teaching for itching ears. People want to hear what they want to hear, and he will give it to them. And, you know, when I said that about Jesus, think about, you know, John 6, how so many stopped following Him even after He died, was resurrected?

How many saw Him resurrected? 500? What does that tell you about the size of the church, you know, prior to Pentecost? It was small, it was tiny. It wasn't, you know, He didn't need a 10 ,000 person mega church building to, you know, to house His meetings in.

Finney’s View of Human Ability, Original Sin, and the New Heart

Well, Finnish theology is appealing to the carnal Christian, to the sinful unbeliever. When he says things like this in Systematic Theology, page 249, sinners are under the necessity of first changing their hearts, are their choice of an end before they can put forth any volition 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 and calls upon them, therefore, to repent and to make themselves a new heart.

You know, this reminds me,.

Yeah, make themselves a new heart. God, I mean, isn't it God who takes up the heart of stone and gives us a heart of flesh? You know what it reminds me of though? Those kinds of generalizations reminds me of a book I read, Debating Calvinism by James Wyatt and Dave Hunt and how Dave Hunt would say, you know, there are literally hundreds of verses that show we have free will, but he would never list one and walk it through a passage.

Why, you know, walk through the passage and show that that's why it meant what he said it meant. Well, why is that? Well, for the same reason, when Finney said, what do you say? You know, that the Bible's literally saturated with these kind of teachings because it's easy to say that and just have everybody nod their heads, but it's harder to go through and say, well, this verse in this context means this.

That's hard work.

I'm with you. I'm preaching in the back saying, amen, way to go. For Steve and I, any theology that magnifies human ability to save themselves and minimizes the work of the cross is going to be at the end of our theological whip or rod because it is not God glorifying.

It is not exalting the Lord. It is somehow magnifying humanity and trying to place humanity closer up to God. And we reject that and we will always reject that. And I'll be glad to die rejecting that.

Amen. Well, let me just push the envelope a little bit farther. I have a quote. I'm just looking at this and this is epically appalling. I can't even say how appalling this is, but let me just get your comments on it.

Finley says, it is true that the atonement of itself does not secure the salvation of anyone.

Sounds like people today. Jesus died to make salvation possible. Jesus died to make it, it's kind of kinetic, it's potential, and you've got to add your faith and then all of a sudden it works. Jesus, when you look at Pauline language and Petrine language in the Bible, it always talks about past tense.

Jesus did not make possible redemption, make possible propitiation, make possible reconciliation. It's always past tense. He accomplished salvation. And I think when Jesus says it is finished, I think he meant it.

He meant it. He secured salvation of all those that the Father has given him. The Father in eternity past could have chosen everyone. He chose some. Jesus on Calvary could have died for everyone, but he died for the sum that the Father had given him.

And then in time, the Spirit of God regenerated the same sum. Kind of sounds like to me, Steve, that the Trinity was working together in salvation.

Yeah, sort of like, to use a crass word, it was teamwork, you know? I mean, did Jesus redeem a people or did he make their redemption possible? Did he reconcile a people to God or did he make reconciliation possible?

Did he just bring them together so they could hash things out, you know?

Steve, if I have a Charles Finney systematic theology book in my study,.

And I do, it was funny.

You walked in the other day and you saw it. And that is because the last eight years that I've had that book, I've turned it around so no one would walk in and think, oh, pastor likes Charles Finney. And he's right there next to Millard Erickson and Louis Burkoff and Culver and all these other guys.

I'll have a Norm Geisler systematic theology series. But the only reason I have Finney's systematic theology is because we have people coming to the church and they'll say, how dare you say something bad about Charles Finney?

You know, it's one thing if you call him a Mason, but it's another thing if you call him a heretic. And if you say that, people's, the hair on the back of their neck kind of fluffs up like a dog's and they don't like that.

So I have to have the book here, but I'm almost ashamed. Steve, if I die, tell people that was just as a bad resource book.

Next to my Mormonism section. He used to use Finney quotes in almost all of his sermons.

So I think you should be careful when you buy Finney books. I'd say this, those people who have followed Finney and now want to publish some of his work, our works, they know Finney was a theological screwball, if I could use the word, and they have toned it down.

They have redacted things. They have tried to make him look better because bald face Finney makes people reject him. I say, wait for the movie.

You know, I don't even know what that means, but oh.

Anthropocentric preachers are not rated highly. If we had a book of Finney, I think we should probably burn one of the Finney books, don't you? That'll make the publishers that send me books like that.

Let's get it done.

Well, let me get, I think we have time for maybe one more quote here. How about this? There can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground, listen, of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law.

Well, it's interesting, and I don't know if the connection is close or not, but in my mind it is. You've got these people who, they've get justification by faith alone wrong. They get it, they wrongly assess it, and then sanctification is all blown up too.

If you've got justification improperly understood, then so is sanctification. And what does it do? Just like with Finney at the end of his life, it turns into some kind of bad Wesleyan perfectionism, and you have to completely obey.

If Jesus doesn't obey for you, I guess it makes sense. It's wrong, but it makes sense. Then you better obey for you. I mean, this is so, when did Finney die? When was that? 18-something, 1860-ish.

And I'm just like, I'm telling you that when I read this, it is so eerie to me, because this is Mormonism redux. This is Mormonism all over again, because why did Jesus die? To make it possible for us to save ourselves.

And we can be perfect and all these other, the only thing that's missing here is the fact, is the idea that we could become gods. I mean, everything else just basically reeks of Mormonism. So I'm like, I think Joseph Smith maybe attended some of his courses or something like that.

But I mean, it just gets, it goes from bad to worse. You know, the doctrine of an imputed righteousness or that Christ's obedience to the law was credited as our obedience is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption.

We said that, but I mean, that's right out of the Bible. Well, if you Wait, I have to get this in. For Christ's righteousness could do no more than justify himself. It could never be imputed. Why did Jesus need to be justified?

Well, if you forget that man,.

That God is only man, if you forget that he's God and man, then it's messed up. But since Jesus was God, he has an infinite amount of righteousness to give to anybody who would call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

His death had to justify himself. You just, oh. You know, what is justification if it's a declaration of righteousness? Christ was always righteous. I mean, how much more evidence do you need that he was a heretic than this concept that Jesus needed to be justified?

I'm with you. Mike Abendroth and Steve Cooley,.

Nocompromiseradio .com. Send Steve the letters. Steve at nocompromiseradio .com.

No Compromise Radio with Pastor Mike Abendroth is a production of Bethlehem Bible Church in West Boylston. Bethlehem Bible Church is a Bible teaching church firmly committed to unleashing the life-transforming power of God's word through verse-by-verse exposition of the sacred text.

Please come and join us. Our service times are Sunday morning at 1015 and in the evening at six. We're right on Route 110 in West Boylston. You can check us out online at bbchurch .org or by phone at 508 -835 -3400.

The thoughts and opinions expressed on No Compromise Radio do not necessarily reflect those of WVNE, its staff or management.