Carbon
Admin
- Joined
- May 19, 2023
- Messages
- 5,079
- Reaction score
- 3,978
- Points
- 113
- Location
- New England
- Faith
- Reformed
- Country
- USA
- Marital status
- Married
- Politics
- Conservative
According to Arminians/Provisionists they can.
Charles Finney One of his most popular sermons was "Sinners Bound to Change Their Own Hearts."
Also from Finney, the "anxious bench" (precursor to today’s altar call), emotional tactics that led to fainting and weeping, and other "excitements," as Finney and his followers called them.
Finney believed that human beings were capable of choosing whether they would be corrupt by nature or redeemed, referring to original sin as an "anti-scriptural and nonsensical dogma". In clear terms, Finney denied the notion that human beings possess a sinful nature. Therefore, if Adam leads us into sin, not by our inheriting his guilt and corruption, but by following his poor example, this leads logically to the view of Christ, the Second Adam, as saving by example. This is precisely where Finney takes it, in his explanation of the atonement.
Works salvation.
Free willers, time for a self-check.
Will you continue and finally take it to the full?
The first thing we must note about the atonement, Finney says, is that Christ could not have died for anyone else’s sins than his own. His obedience to the law and his perfect righteousness were sufficient to save him, but could not legally be accepted on behalf of others. That Finney’s whole theology is driven by a passion for moral improvement is seen on this very point: "If he [Christ] had obeyed the Law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non of our salvation"? In other words, why would God insist that we save ourselves by our own obedience if Christ’s work was sufficient? The reader should recall the words of St. Paul in this regard, "I do not nullify the grace of God’, for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing." It would seem that Finney’s reply is one of agreement. The difference is, he has no difficulty believing both of those premises.
That is not entirely fair, of course, because Finney did believe that Christ died for something—not for someone, but for something. In other words, he died for a purpose, but not for people.
Arminians/Provisionists, Do you agree with Finney?
Can anyone point out where reformed theology believes or teaches such heresies?
Nope!
@TB2 A little about Finney for you.
Charles Finney One of his most popular sermons was "Sinners Bound to Change Their Own Hearts."
Also from Finney, the "anxious bench" (precursor to today’s altar call), emotional tactics that led to fainting and weeping, and other "excitements," as Finney and his followers called them.
Finney believed that human beings were capable of choosing whether they would be corrupt by nature or redeemed, referring to original sin as an "anti-scriptural and nonsensical dogma". In clear terms, Finney denied the notion that human beings possess a sinful nature. Therefore, if Adam leads us into sin, not by our inheriting his guilt and corruption, but by following his poor example, this leads logically to the view of Christ, the Second Adam, as saving by example. This is precisely where Finney takes it, in his explanation of the atonement.
Works salvation.
Free willers, time for a self-check.
Will you continue and finally take it to the full?
The first thing we must note about the atonement, Finney says, is that Christ could not have died for anyone else’s sins than his own. His obedience to the law and his perfect righteousness were sufficient to save him, but could not legally be accepted on behalf of others. That Finney’s whole theology is driven by a passion for moral improvement is seen on this very point: "If he [Christ] had obeyed the Law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non of our salvation"? In other words, why would God insist that we save ourselves by our own obedience if Christ’s work was sufficient? The reader should recall the words of St. Paul in this regard, "I do not nullify the grace of God’, for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing." It would seem that Finney’s reply is one of agreement. The difference is, he has no difficulty believing both of those premises.
That is not entirely fair, of course, because Finney did believe that Christ died for something—not for someone, but for something. In other words, he died for a purpose, but not for people.
Arminians/Provisionists, Do you agree with Finney?
Can anyone point out where reformed theology believes or teaches such heresies?
Nope!
@TB2 A little about Finney for you.
Last edited:
