Posted by
ValiantForTruth on Friday, March 27, 2009 11:42:05 PM
“There is nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature. It consists entirely in the right exercise of the powers of nature. It is just that, and nothing else. When mankind becomes truly religious, they are not enabled to put forth exertions which they were unable before to put forth. They only exert powers which they had before, in a different way, and use them for the glory of God." [Finney]
This is Charles Finney’s view of the will. It is not fallen and ruined by sin, nor is it without ability to do what pleases God. Men naturally have within themselves the capacity both to seek God and to do His will.
As the new birth is a natural phenomenon for Finney, so too is his view of revival: "A revival is not a miracle, nor dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means—as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means."
The belief that the new birth and revival depend necessarily on divine activity is pernicious. "No doctrine," he says, "is more dangerous than this to the prosperity of the Church, and nothing more absurd" [Finney, Revivals of Religion].
When church leaders claim that theology gets in the way of growth and insist that it does not matter what a particular church believes, they have become Finney’s successors. Outward and immediate growth is no sign that fruit is forth coming. Those who think otherwise set themselves in opposition to Christ’s teaching in the Sower Parable. Finney’s revivalism is the method of coercive pragmatism and meant to provoke a response. They are like the plant that withers and dies because it has no root or depth of soil.
In Finney’s theology, God is not sovereign, man is not a sinner by nature, the atonement is not a true payment for sin, justification by imputation is insulting to reason and morality, the new birth is simply the effect of successful techniques, and revival is a natural result of clever campaigns.
Finney’s message is a radical departure from the faith of the Reformers and Edwards, as is the basic orientation of the movements we see around us today that bear his imprint such as: revivalism that is known by its modern label of Church Growth Movement, or Pentecostal perfectionism and emotionalism, or the anti-intellectual, and anti-doctrinal tendencies of many American evangelicals and fundamentalists or the political ideal of "Christian America" that promoted the social crusades built on a naturalistic moralism and faith in humanity's potential of self-salvation.
Of one thing Finney was absolutely correct: The Gospel held by the Reformers and Edwards is "another gospel" and distinct from the one he proclaimed. The question for the churches is with which gospel will we side?