When I watch the Wizard of Oz with my kids, I am always reminded of the power of belief. The climactic scene with Scarecrow, Tin-man, Lion and Dorothy standing before the “Great and Powerful OZ” shows the power of belief in the life of a believer. OZ was magnificent and terrible at the same time. However, within moments, Toto unveils the Wizard as an old man whose only claim to fame was that he was clever and had a working knowledge of pyrotechnics. Oz was a fake, a fraud, a hoax and people bought it hook, line, and sinker. OK. What does the Emerald city and early American revivalism have in common? Doctrine. What a person believes is their doctrine. How a person views God or spiritual issues will affect every thought and life choice a person makes just like Dorothy and the gang acted one way when they thought the Wizard of Oz was all powerful and then another way when they knew he was a big fake. What a person believes matters. So, how did Finney view God? How did Finney view people and the relationship with God? What did Finney believe was necessary for man and God to have a relationship?
We begin to pull the curtain on Finney’s belief system when we realize that Finney tried hard to refute the orthodox teaching that was filling the pulpits in much of Philadelphia when he traveled there in 1828. Finney sought to hunt out “people from under those particular views of orthodoxy in which I find them entrenched.” Later Finney would comment that “much of my labor in the ministry has consisted in correcting these [orthodox] views” (emphasis mine). G. Frederick Wright (his sympathetic biographer wrote that,
“Finney has left in literature a permanent record not only of his life, but also of his struggles to adjust the truth of Christianity into such a harmonious system of thought that no violence should be one to the dictates of reason.”
After the conversion of souls, this was Finney’s life ambition. It was often said that Finney would leave behind him scores of young men “emancipated from sin and Calvinism.” What did this mean? Finney did not believe a person was by nature a sinner, but simply inclined to sin. In other words, the will within any person could overcome sin if they chose to act contrary to it. Revival meetings were, to Finney, the pivot point in which a person could exercise a will for too long submitting to sin unnecessarily. Finney wrote in Lectures on Revivals of Religion 1834-35: “When God commands us to do a thing it is the highest possible evidence that we can do it. He has no right to command unless we have power to obey.”
Finney grew to believe that this teaching that mankind is lost in sin, (i.e. existed in a powerless/helpless condition) had subverted the Gospel… until he began to preach: “The truth is, that very little of the Gospel has come out upon the world, for these hundreds of years, without being clogged and obscured by false theology.”
Finney also believed that a view of God’s grace as a sole inspiration for a person to trust in Christ, as expressed in “Calvinism” to be at the heart of the opposition of him and a threat to effective evangelism. To believe that mankind was helpless and that only God could effectively awaken and draw a person to himself was ludicrous. We see this thinking displayed when Finney urged the “prayer of faith” on anyone who desired something from God and that God would be bound to answer. Finney said, “We see that pious parents can render the salvation of their children certain. Only let them pray in faith and be agreed as touching the things they shall ask for, and God has promised them the desire of their hearts.” Who stands in the way of children being saved? Parents! If only they would ask in the “prayer of faith.” Finney’s passion for the “conversion” of people lay incapacitated within his faulty belief system expressed in his goal for revival:
“The object of the ministry is to get all the people to feel that the devil has no right to rule this world, but that they ought all to give themselves to God, and ‘vote in’ the Lord Jesus Christ as the Governor of the universe.”
Finney’s goal does not expose mankinds sin before a Holy God. Nor is the wrath of God to be poured out people who refuse to repent part of the plan. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross as an expression of amazing creator/creature love is not within the object of Finney’s ministry. No mention of God’s glory or rightful place as the Creator. Finney promoted a spiritual democratic system in which people have the power (or “vote”) to get the Devil out of office and Jesus reelected as “Govenor of the universe.” I am sure Jesus would be gratful for our help.
Tomorrow we will look at the results of Finney’s brand of revivalism.
I ask this question wanting to give Finney the benefit of the doubt. Do you think that his passion for winning souls led to this arminian/pelagian thinking or was he just committed to elevating the status of man? I know there isn’t much distinction between the two, but perhaps this may explain the preponderance of this faulty thinking throughout our world today.
Perhaps this is a bit obvious, since we have been discussing the role of the Law in God’s redemptive plan…but I’ll go ahead and say what’s on my mind.
Doesn’t this statement by Finney completely discard the purpose of the Law? If every standard we were given were attainable, then we wouldn’t need Jesus…we wouldn’t need sacrifice…we wouldn’t need the Bible…we wouldn’t even need anyone to tell us that we don’t need anyone–we wouldn’t need God: we’d BE gods! For the Scriptures say, “be holy, for I am holy” (Leviticus 11:44; quoted and expounded upon in 1 Peter 1:15-16). Well, since God gave us that command, we must be able to be holy! That means, once we’ve “made ourselves holy,” we don’t need Jesus’ sacrifice, and we don’t even need God’s permission…we can just waltz into His holy presence any time we want. After all, by that time, we’re just as perfect as He is. Who needs a Judge when everyone’s above the Law?
For one thing, Finney here is giving God an ultimatum–telling Him what He can and cannot do. That should raise red flags in our minds, anyway (think of the common explanation, “God is a gentleman”). He is also, perhaps more erroneously, elevating man to a pedestal at least equal to God, as Pat just said.
Thank God Finney’s view was not one taken in the counsel of Scripture. I don’t know about you, but if we were able to be holy, then I’d be pretty depressed–because it must be wicked hard to do! The Bible and my personal experience make that quite clear…
In reference to Pat’s question concerning Finney and his root theology in regard to his passionate actions. Let me answer this by pointing to a question I raised while attending a lecture on the life of Charles Finney given by a professor from Dallas Theological Seminary in the early 90’s. I asked “Do you think Finney was even saved given what he believed?” To which the professor said, “Yes, based on the confession he made when he came to Christ.” However, the professor went on to point out that Finney was on the mission field within two years of being converted and this did not leave really any significant time to be discipled in Biblical truth. When Finney saw people reacting to his basic “vote for Jesus” type message, he fanned the flames of the reactions with more of the same and, poof, the “new measures” were popularized. I think Finney just let his passion steer his thinking. He did not receive counsel and the nature of his activities (traveling revivalist) defied accountability of a local church or denomination. Also, Finney no one recorded his messages for a long time so he flew under the radar. It was not until people began to write down and circulate it via transcript and newspaper concerning what he was saying in his revivals that the fur really flew. But by the time this happened, Finney would point to his track record for souls and what could you say, “they really didn’t mean it?” In time, the critics were proved right, but by then the dye had been cast for a new generation of revivalist. There was a brief moment around 16 years into his ministry that he began to question some of his methods, but by the time he published his “Lectures in Systematic Theology” he was spewing theological humus all over the place again.
Dan
Ding. Ding. Ding. Ding. Jeffrey, you win the prize for picking out the most obvious refutation of Finney’s argument! That is exactly what I think every time I read a quote concerning our ability to overcome and the presumption that God would never give us a burden too big to carry. The intent of giving the Law is exactly what Finney is opposing! We must all remember when studying the Bible, the issue is not my perception of the burden – I think there are many things I cannot do yet God’s grace enables me to do them, but God’s own Word concerning the requirements he ascribes to us. Finney ran amuck exactly where Pelagius did in his battle with Augustine. Pelagius argued that if God gives us the responsibility He must give us the corresponding ability. Augustine replied to Pelagius with Scripture concerning the Law of God and the sinfulness of man’s heart. Augustine concluded that man can no more fulfill the requirements of God’s Law than an empty glass can fill itself. Pelagius was eventually condemned as a heretic and sent into exile. However, the teaching of Pelagius pops up wherever people value human reason over Biblical truth. I hear this teaching all over the place today. Probably the greatest arena for this type of rational is Christian music. Listen hard and you will hear the teaching of Pelagius flowing through modern Christian music.
Basic examples: “follow your heart,” “trust your feelings,” “in my heart I know it to be true.” Base your faith on absolute truth…not your feelings!
Can anyone give some specific examples? I recall some song on the FISH saying “I’m never gonna let God down again” but I can’t remember the name or artist. I’m looking for REAL theological mishaps here – not just lines that could be taken out of context.
Is this it, Dave? Note the chorus and the last part of the song.
Whatever It Takes :: Nate Sallie
Genre: Christian
Who was I to try to live without you
Thinking I could do things on my own
Lord I know that I should never doubt you
I get so lost and lonely when I stray
Now it’s time to
Surrender to you
‘Cause I’m just a man who believes
And it’s you that I need
Whatever it takes
That’s what I’ll do
I’d give anything to get back to you
I know I was wrong
And I’ve made some mistakes
But I’m gonna do whatever it takes
Whatever it takes
In a world of darkness and temptation
Only you can give me eyes to see
Father you’re my strength and my salvation
I trust you’ll show me who
I’m supposed to be
I will follow
Anywhere that you lead
For it’s your will not mine
I’m gonna prove it this time
Whatever it takes
That’s what I’ll do
I’d give anything to get back to you
I know I was wrong
And I’ve made some mistakes
But I’m gonna do whatever it takes
Whatever it takes
I’m standin’ here ’cause I’ve got nothing to lose
I lost it all when I walked away from you
I swear this time around
I won’t let you down
Pretty self-centered, isn’t it? Problem is, it seems to be all about God. But when you get right down to it, it’s a humanistic declaration of sufficiency.
Oooh, so much to say. See here for some thoughts on why I think narcissism like this is the idolatry of our day.
Incidentally, did I read that right? “…it’s your will not mine/I’m gonna prove it this time…” Could that be any more absurd? It’s like saying, “God doesn’t want me to prove he is sovereign, but I’m gonna do it anyway.”
*sigh*…
Ahhh yes, that’s it. Thx Donna! 😀