# 4 "The Cry For Forgiveness"
fcba%40comcast.net
Dear Confessors,
There is only one more of these sermons based on W. Paul Jones's Theological Worlds that you will need to suffer through. This one is dear to my heart since as a Finneyite I did not get "simul justus et peccator" in my early Christian life.
Chris
“The Cry For Forgiveness.”
Rev. Dr. Chris Anderson, # 1416
Heidelberg UCC, York, PA
Lent IV, 3-14-2010, Psalm 51:1&2
4th in a Series on the Five Cries
Theological Worlds by W. Paul Jones
So far during Lent we have looked at the cry of the mystic, the cry of the social activist and the cry of the adventurer. Next Sunday we will conclude this series by looking at the cry of the wounded healer. Yet today we are going to look at the cry of the sinner. The sinner’s cry is best seen through the psalm attributed to David after the prophet Nathan spoke to him about his sin with Bathsheba. “Have mercy on me, O God, according to you abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.”
Have you ever felt that you do not love God enough? Are you discontent with yourself because you do not love others enough? Have you ever found yourself questioning your motives even when you did good deeds? Do you ever just plain feel guilty? Do you ever sense the need to be cleansed from evil?
If you can say yes to any of these questions then at least part of you is what can be called a sinner or as a Christian, a forgiven sinner.
The best example of a sinner as a type of Christian is Martin Luther. Here was a man who had given up family, career, inheritance, prestige, and singing & drinking in pubs with his friends because he wanted to be sure of his salvation. As a monk he would go to the priest for confession and receive absolution but as he was going out he would call the priest to confess again because he had just committed the sin of pride in having a good confession!
There was no peace for Luther. He believed that if anyone had any sin that was not confessed he or she had lost their salvation. His superior, John Staupitz, wisely decided to put Luther’s great mind and imagination to work and he had Luther study to be a Doctor of Theology. It was in the midst of this study that Luther came to understand Justification by Faith.
Luther came to understand that when one is justified by faith that it does not mean that one is perfect or without sin. No, Luther discovered that the person who lives by faith in Christ is both justified and a sinner at the same time. This changed his life. Now he could live a life of joy for God loved him even though he was a sinner! Now Luther had peace with God!
The cry of the sinner is: “Have mercy on me, O God, according to you abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.” In Christ, that cry is answered. It is the cross that offers us forgiveness. The hymn tells us:
“Just as I am, without one plea, But that thy blood was shed for me,
And that thou bidd’st me come to thee, O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, thou wilt receive, Wilt welcome, pardon, cleanse, relieve;
Because they promise I believe, O Lamb of God, I come, I come.””
This hymn tells us what the simple bumper sticker tells us: “Christians aren’t perfect, only forgiven.”
Without this doctrine of justification by faith those who sense sin as well as Luther would have no peace. But instead they experience “Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound.”
Yet we have seen that every one of these five types of Christian can be out of balance. I believe Luther was a Christian before his insight into Justification by faith. Yet he was a Christian who was more of a pain in the neck than a help to others. He saw the Christian life as one of perfection.
Some Christians who do not really get that Christians are at the same time both justified and sinner (“simul justus et peccator”) end up living one of two sad types of life. Both of these types of life overemphasize a contrast between “before” and “after” of becoming a Christian.
1. One group ends up like Luther while he was a monk. They are very honest about their failures. They always feel guilty about everything they do. They believe that they are defeated Christians. They end up always examining themselves to the point that they are not much help to others. Often they end putting guilt trips upon others also.
2. The other group sincerely wants to live the life of joy and comfort that the scriptures teach us. They do not want to life the life of the defeated Christian. In order to accomplish this they end up deceiving themselves. In order proclaim that in Christ they have overcome sin they lower the bar on sin. Sin becomes merely outward actions that they can control. Some have lowered the bar on sin to this: “I don’t smoke, drink or chew, Or go with girls that do.” Sin is much deeper and more subtle than this.
It is a true understanding of justification by faith that helps both of these groups.
As Christians should be in touch with all five of these Christian cries. Let us not neglect any of the five Christian cries:
· to be forgiven daily
· for a home beyond what this world offers
· for justice
· for the power of the Holy Spirit to move in our lives
· for compassion for those who need refuge in the time of need.
God Is Still Laughing
http://home.comcast.net/~fcba
Bct...@aol.com
George Demetrion
What is your best thinking about Finney and how extensively have you studied his work?
I raise the questions because my wife and I have read together three substantial collections of his sermons, which I find very deep and powerful. Moreover, he is a very insightful commentator on the Bible, which served for him as his foundational text.
At the very least, I believe his cumulative work adds a great deal from a heuristic (or irenic perspective). Moreover if the canonical Scripture is the basis through which to interpret Reformed theology rather than the reverse, at the very least, Calvinistic perspectives which label Finney as a heretic, are, to say the least, overblown.
I will say more later; but given his theological emphases on holiness and the Third Person of the Trinity, I was wondering what your current best thinking on him is.
BTW, I believe Nevin's text The Anxious Bench verges on caricature when Finney's cumulative work, especially from the late 1830s on is brought into consideration.
Best,
George
From: Bct...@aol.com
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:48:04 -0500
Subject: Re: # 4 "The Cry For Forgiveness"
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
fcba%40comcast.net
Dear George & Jane and other Confessors,
I will not put my responses in red because WIllis finds it hard to read colors but they will be in this bigger print. I am cutting out soon because my bride and I are walking our new Dachtshund when she walks in the door. (I have a lot more to say but the discussion on Finney would take days.)
Chris
God Is Still Laughing
http://home.comcast.net/~fcba
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Demetrion" <gdeme...@msn.com>
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 7:13:13 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: # 4 "The Cry For Forgiveness"
Thanks Chris(t),
What is your best thinking about Finney and how extensively have you studied his work?
I am one of the few that has ever read his Sytematic Theology. I was totally into Finney for many years. I read his Autobiography, Sanctification, Lectures on Theology (smaller than his Systematic Theology), True Saints, God's Love for a Sinning World, one named something like The Power of the Spirit (I had a great and powerful spiritual experince reading that one!!!) and the wonderful collection by Donald Dayton entitled Reflections on Revival. Besides these primary sources I have read quite a bit of related primary and secondary sources.
FInney was an amazing evangelist, preacher, social critic and organizer. He understood how to reach people, he didn't allow what was popular to stop him from teaching what he thought was true. The truth is that one cannot understand Billy Graham and Dwight L. Moody without understanding him.
But he was a Pelagian. Yes, he believed in grace but he held out the American version of the rugged individualism of the Jackson Age so well he moved into Pelagianism. That cannot be doubted.I could say more but suffice it to say I needed to hear about "simul justus et peccator" and in Finney I did not hear it. It is largely because of him that sadly much of what is called "evangelicalism" actually would not be label evangelical by Luther.
I raise the questions because my wife and I have read together three substantial collections of his sermons, which I find very deep and powerful. Moreover, he is a very insightful commentator on the Bible, which served for him as his foundational text.
At the very least, I believe his cumulative work adds a great deal from a heuristic (or irenic perspective). Moreover if the canonical Scripture is the basis through which to interpret Reformed theology rather than the reverse, at the very least, Calvinistic perspectives which label Finney as a heretic, are, to say the least, overblown.
One can easily be a "heretic." When I read Richard Norris' THE CHRISTOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY where he goes through the discussion of the nature of Christ from Melito of Sardis to the definition at Chalcedon I often identified with views that later were seen to be "heretical." And I had been a pastor for 15 years and I had gone to Gordon-Conwell Seminary!!! Heresy does not necessarily mean that one is not a Christian or that one is a terrible person. A heresy is when one speaks a truth but it is unbalanced in relation to something else. FInney taught the truth that humans were responsible. He merely did not teach the paradox that humans are also victims. Historically he might be defended by showing that some of the Princeton grads only taught that humans were victims and not responsible but I do not want to go there now.
I will say more later; but given his theological emphases on holiness and the Third Person of the Trinity, I was wondering what your current best thinking on him is.
Finney was a godly man and his character had many wonderful things. When he retired as pastor in Oberlin he did not butt in on the pastor that followed him.
His basic problem was his lack of understanding on how the Spirit speaks through the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. In that sense he shows both the best and the worst of Protestantism. The best is that he had the freedom to question what was popular, the worst was that he did not take time to study how God had spoken through the church for over 1800 years. Somewho he thought that though he could teach others God had never taught anyone before him! He thought that if God spoke to hiim in a certain way in his Bible reading that was good enough. Therefore he did not study the great controverseys of the chruch with the humility that such studies require. Personally I think Nevin's work on THE EARLY CHURCH is more important as a criticism of Finney than THE ANXIOUS BENCH. But that is another whole story.
BTW, I believe Nevin's text The Anxious Bench verges on caricature when Finney's cumulative work, especially from the late 1830s on is brought into consideration.
Best,
George
From: Bct...@aol.com
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:48:04 -0500
Subject: Re: # 4 "The Cry For Forgiveness"
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
George Demetrion
Very thoughtful,
Clearly, you've read many of Finney's key texts including Systematic Theology, which I find exceedingly well grounded biblically particularly if one excepts the precepts of his "new divinity" moral government theology as having, if nothing else, reasonable plausibility as a viable theological construction governed in covenantal precepts.
To the texts you read I would also bring to the attention of the list, the various texts edited by Lois Guifford Parkhurst, Jr titled Principles of Liberty, Principles of Holiness, Principles of Faith, Principles of Devotion, and more. These collections represent Finney at his sermonesque best and behave a different tonality than that of his Systematic Theology, a valuable text in its own right.
I do think the label "Pelegian" --a term, along with antinomian perfectionism he rejects about himself, is overstated. Closer to the mark, I think, would be a self attribution as an Arminian leaning Calvinist. he did, after all, accept, with much grappling and nuance, the doctrine of Election (last couple of chapters in his Systematic Theology and he certainly did accept the priority of grace over works; or perhaps better stated, he accepted the biblical notion of grace-based works in the Jamesian sense.
In terms of Finney's "unbalance;" of course that depends on where you are coming from. The reality is that he worked diligently to ground his ultimate truth claims in a 19th century-based canonically rich biblical framework. His sermons are seeped in thick biblical exposition, clearly reflecting his emphasis on the Holy Spirit, in which the work and person of Christ and the sovereignty of God are far from neglected in his work. What he did reject (and with more than a little caricature) was his understanding of 17th-19th century Calvinism, particularly when cherished doctrines became expressed as gospel truths themselves. As I said to a member in our study group, the canonical Scripture is the basis through which to evaluate theological doctrine rather than Calvinist doctrine being the basis of interpreting the Bible.
I hear what you are saying on Finney's limited understanding of the church, though that critique has more relevance to his early revivalistic era from about 1825-1835 than his work in the 1840s and 1850s where he sought long term stabilization of authentic Christian identity and community. A touching point was his 1851-1852 revival in Hartford supported by his good friend Horace Bushnell. Bushnell's Christian Nurture and Finney's Lectures of Revivals of Religion are commonly depicted as antithetical texts in the household of mid-19th century American Protestantism. For a balanced view on Finney one would also need to consult his Letters on Religious Revivals written in the 1840s. In any event, by the time that Finney got to Hartford, the convergences between Finney's emphasis on revivals and Bushnell's views of Christian Nurture were much closer in emphasis than commonly depicted.
In terms of Finney's view of sin, he did believe it was a perpetual problem and temptation, though based on his view of sanctification (see below) he did believe that in principle it was possible to remain in a state of entire sanctification in this life. More fundamentally, however, this doctrine acted as a heuristic designed to stimulate a profound and enduring proclivity toward holiness based, though, on grace and not works even as he did emphasize the importance of means. One need to view Finney within the context of the broader holiness movement, a topic that many Calvinists like J.I. Packer grappled with, with a great deal of attention. My longer term work on Finnney is to interpret him through the interpretive lens of the 17th-20th century Anglo-American Puritan tradition in which I think one can, with important caveats noted, find some very intriguing convergences with the likes of John Owens, Jeremiah Burrougys, Jonathan Edwards, and J.C. Ryle. Perhaps more later:
In the meantime, to close this I am copying a section of a short essay I wrote in my preparation of a study session on Finney, focusing on his views of Entire Sanctification
Best,
George Demetrion
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Entire Sanctification
Entire sanctification implies entire conformity of the heart and life to all the known will of God, however it may be known, to both physical and moral law as far as they are known (Charles G. Finney, Principles of Sanctification, p. 49).
Faith is an indispensable condition for the fulfillment of this promise of sanctification. It is entirely impossible that we should love God with all the heart without confidence in Him. God inspires love in man in no other way by revealing himself in such a way as to inspire confidence—that confidence which works by love (p. 65).
A comprehensive review of Finney’s theology is well beyond what can be tackled here. I focus on his central doctrine of entire sanctification, put together in 1840 in a single collection, Views of Sanctification. http://www.gospeltruth.net/1840views.htm
One of the most fundamental thing to consider is that Finney’s religious understanding emerged in the crucible of experience based on what he perceived as the direct illumination of the Holy Spirit upon his consciousness (see Rom 9:1). Through this encounter, the radical quest for holiness as the basis for a right relationship with the living God became the ultimate concern of his entire post-conversion life. His theology became crystallized in the unfolding of this quest through his riveting pulpit encounters and in his intense spiritual wrestling with the Lord Almighty. This passion he carried out throughout his post-conversion life as a preacher, a teacher of systematic theology and in his role as husband and father in his unrelenting passion to embody the will of God with radical integrity as illuminated in Scripture, in his own consciousness, in the response of others, and in the final analysis in his perception of the power and grace of the Holy Spirit.
Finney rejected what he grasped from the Calvinist teachings of his Presbyterian brethren, which at least initially was not substantial. That was little matter to him as he read the Bible with passionate fervor, often on his knees, and stayed with key passages until God seared their meaning into his consciousness through what he believed was the illumination of the Holy Spirit. To that he applied the keenness of his razor sharp mind in ultimately developing a systematic theology based on the core precepts of the New Haven Theology focusing on the moral government of God’s universal benevolence and righteousness as its core grounding focus. He articulated this work in incredible detail through monthly and quarterly publications ultimately organized into book collections, culminating in his massive Systematic Theology.
Finney defined sanctification as nothing other than that of “living a [consistently] holy life in appreciation for being justified” as a redeemed sinner, “a life that honors the Holy God who has loved and saved us” (editors introduction). As a function of holiness, “salvation for the individual involves the total process of justification, sanctification, and glorification.” In this respect salvation has past, present, and future implications in which enduring to the end has eternal as well as earthly implications as part of God’s process of ultimately glorifying creation in the New Heaven and New Earth. On Finney’s interpretation, this called for the unrelenting pursuit of holiness in this life, what he referred to as sanctification or consecration through radical fidelity to the Holy Spirit. By entire sanctification Finney meant “The consecration of the whole being to God” (p. 16). This, in turn, presupposed the unity of moral action, another key Finneyite doctrine, that the choice of an ultimate end, whatever that end may be, must be for the time that it is enacted, the supreme preference of the will.
On this assumption, Finney defined sin as “the supreme preference of self-gratification” and holiness as “the supreme preference of the good of being” in which it is plainly impossible to make opposite choices at the same time, that is, to choose opposite and conflicting ultimate ends.” Anything less than the supreme good, even ambivalence itself, which in its very ambivalence reflects a unified state of will is sin. This is reinforced by Finney’s second corollary that intensity of choice also matters in which the call for holiness requires nothing short of seeking God’s will with all one’s heart, soul, strength, and mind in which pursuing God’s will with any lesser intent is sin http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/Unity.of.Moral.Action.html.
Finney defined entire sanctification as a decision made in real time to be wholly consecrated to God, which he distinguished from permanent sanctification as perpetually secured, a view which he rejected, and by implication and explication linked to the Calvinist doctrine of “irresistible grace.” Viewed as a function of the will Finney defined entire sanctification as that which was consistent with natural human capacity based on Luke 10:27, which by definition set the boundaries and circumference in the potential of human ability which rejected any notion of sin as innate physical depravity beyond our capacity to do anything about. Finney never doubted that humankind still had a tendency toward sin which he defined as particular acts (sinning) rather than a state of being as such (sin). Sin, therefore, was nothing more and nothing less than the the result of conscious willing rather than innate incapacity to be or get right with God. Viewed thusly, the seat of moral accountability resides in the voluntary faculty of the will only (p. 20) rather than in “the substance of a person’s body or soul,” (p.23) in the involuntary emotions or thoughts that just spring up as such. The various thoughts and emotions that do arise may be influenced by prior sinning. Yet in the immediacy and unity of moral action, such prior action does not play a role in the momentary act of entire sanctification at any given time and place based on the precept of making every thought and action captive to Christ in the actual happening of their ongoing occurrence.
As a potential current state realized through radical commitment to holiness as determined by the settled mind and carried out through the will, entire sanctification as Finney defines it, does not imply:
· That watchfulness, prayer, and effort are no longer needed in the power and efficacy of the Holy Spirit.
· That temptation to sin will not be strong and needed to be struggled hard against in the power and efficacy of the Holy Spirit.
· That we are dependent on our own capabilities and not the grace of God at every moment of our lives.
· That there is no more growth in grace.
· That the sanctified soul will feel always and at all times sure that his feelings and conduct are perfectly right.
Entire sanctification does imply that the law of God only requires the entire consecration of the powers we have as we exercise them in the present and that as these powers increase so does our obligation which will continue to increase throughout eternity. (pp. 33-36).
Finney drew on a wide array of Scripture in making his claim. Key verses that he prayed and preached over until the Holy Spirit revealed their nugget to him in the searing and sealing of his own consciousness included 1 Thess 5:23-24, Like 10:27, James 4:17, Eph 3:14-19, 4:10-16, and 6:16, Col 4:12, 2 Cor 7:1, 1 Jn 5:4, Heb 8:8-12, Jude 24. Finney related an incident in his early conversion period where in reading the Diary of David Brainard (http://www.eternallifeministries.org/brainerd.htm) he came to an initial conclusion that he “never expected to make any considerable attainments in holiness in this life.” He drew that from ‘a natural inference” from Brainard based on the notion of equating sin with “the theory of physical depravity which he held.” Finney concluded that if holiness remained elusive to such an apostle like figure as Brainard, there would be little hope for him “to expect such a thing” (p. 83). Shortly thereafter Finney came to the conclusion that “if there is anything that is important to high attainments in holiness, and to the progress of the work of sanctification in this life, it is the adaptation of the principle of total abstinence of sin” (pp. 83-84). Laying the groundwork in Views of Sanctification for what he ultimately articulated in his most formal statement, Systematic Theology (1851), Finney was convinced that unless such as doctrine as entire sanctification were enacted upon with an intent of irresolute seriousness in the heartfelt belief that it was both a desirable and attainable objective, evangelists and pastors would be called upon “to do their work over again every few months, as a temperance worker would who permits the moderate use of alcohol” (p. 84).
In the final analysis, Finney was reacting against what he viewed as a dominating Calvinist dogmatism that he thought impeded the radical pursuit of holiness that was essential for the long term abidance of individuals, congregations, and larger inter-denominational communities of evangelical believers essential to convert a nation. That combined with a lawyer-like notion of common sense realism on the utter absurdity if not downright immorality of contending that while one in principle is able to and certainly is required to repent to be right with God, “it is certain that you never will be in this life either in your own strength or the strength of God.” Speaking from “personal experience”(p. 84) on the subject, such a belief would inhibit the very pursuit of sanctification as a radical enterprise especially as interpreted in his underlying belief of the unity of moral action which provided a psychological and philosophical premise to his theology. Thus, the work of abiding faith through the power and grace of the Holy Spirit only came home to him when it dawned upon him that that the radical pursuit of entire sanctification in this life was not only attainable, but the essential work to which evangelicals were called for any serious realization of the promises and evocations of the Lord’s prayer (Matt 6:9-13) in 19th century Protestant America.
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:24:34 +0000
From: fc...@comcast.net
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: # 4 "The Cry For Forgiveness"
fcba%40comcast.net
I am hitting the sack now and will later respond to this more fully but I am impressed that you have read his Systematic Theology and have explained what I (at the time) saw as his oddly Calvinistic view of election.
The only point I want to stress now is something that I learned through Lee Barrett. Having read through Calvin's Institutes in this past year I have discovered for my self that though Calvin taught a correct view of justification he never used the phrase "simul justus et peccator" in the Institutes. Barrett says that Calvin's emphasis on sanctification actually led to both the Puritans and their legalisms and to Finney and his Pelagianism. Finney did not appear out of nowhere. He was a child of NW Taylor, the Holiness Movement and the Calvinism that made up the Puritans.
I tried to live as Finney taught. In the sermon (#4) I think I have summarized the two options quite well and simply. If one does not accept "simul justus et peccator" one either ends up like Luther before understanding justification or one ends up like the holiness people who claim sinless perfection and in the process lower the bar on sin so that when they yell at someone they have an excuse such as they were tired and therefore it was not a sin.
I will work on the essay later but it is refreshing to talk to someone who has actually read Finney. He was qutie an amazing person.
I only touched on some of the Finney I read but I think you know I was a student of both Gordon Olson and Harry Conn and therefore Moral Government theology was my systematic theology for a long time.
I happen to agree with Hodge's analysis of Finney's Sytematic Theology. He says that if you read it through and agree with his beginning presuppositions it is an amazingly great work. The problem is that I no longer agree with his beginning presuppostions and have become a church theologian who is no longer enamored by Finney's genius that has ignored the teaching of Patristics, The Middle Ages and the Reformers. A theologian of the church does not reject everything and submit to the climate of the times in which one lives such as Finney did with Jacksonian Democracy.
Again this does not mean I do not see Finney as an amazingly gifted and wonderful Christian man. It merely means that I see various chinks in his armor that I did not see in my twenties.
Again it is great talking to someone who has actually read this amazing Christian evangelist and theologian.
Chris Anderson
Willis E. Elliott
fcba%40comcast.net
To: "CC" <Confessi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 9:01:31 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: # 4 "The Cry For Forgiveness" - Finney - the passive-active continuum in experience/consciousness/theology
herb.davis
Willis E. Elliott
fcba%40comcast.net
Willis,
It might be a weakness I have for the sappy stores on the Hall mark network or a love of history or who knows what but I love your behind the scene stories of what we would call "famous Christian people." In my best moments I would hope it relates to something having to do with incarnation or maybe Paul's statements about being an example to others. Actually someone should sit down with you and a tape recorder and tape you short stories. Once you are gone so are your stories and they are a wonder.
Willis E. Elliott
Richard Floyd
Jean Easland
Richard Floyd
Matt
of resources, but Mark does not put the words in Judas's mouth. In
Mark, Judas goes to the chief priests immediately after the anointing
and offers to betray Jesus. Most Bibles today separate the two
stories with a section heading, but I doubt if the original was so
divided. Read as an uninterrupted whole, one could infer from Mark's
account that Judas was so outraged by the anointing-- and Jesus's
reaction to it-- that he decided to betray Jesus. At least, that
possible inference was plain to me the other day when I read a copy of
Mark that didn't have those pesky, later-added divisions in it.
Matthew could be read in a similar way; Judas's decision to betray
Jesus immediately follows the anointing story in the text, though
again, Judas is not identified as one of the objectors.
Perhaps John was aware of the Markan tradition (even if he did not
have a copy of Mark's Gospel) and took pains to refute it, even at the
cost of obscuring his own point.
Bct...@aol.com
link...@aol.com
Good insight about the feet. Notice that Mary's brother Lazarus, the
dead man, came forth from the tomb "his hands and feet bound with
strips of cloth." And there he sits with Jesus.
And that brings me to Calvin. Calvin noted that perfume functioned as
a prayer for the resurrection of the dead in those days. Thus: "May
his feet bring him near again!"
God bless!
Jim Link
Willis E. Elliott
----- Original Message -----From: Jean EaslandSent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 7:14 PMSubject: Re: Sermon Note: Mar. 21, Fifth Sunday in Lent, John 12:1-8Rick: The secularized mind insists on making God into an object not a mysterious power who performs miracles in the Incarnation and the bloody death as the source of life. Reconciliation is turned into a therapeutic concept making us look smart, powerful, and good. This only masks the despair of not knowing who we are outside of God. Total surrender to God looks like an admission of failure. The symptom is LACK OF SERIOUS PRAYER. No prayer, no communion, no sacredness. Waiting and silence, how could they possibly be valuable? Roger on the pray-ree----- Original Message -----From: Richard FloydSent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 5:49 PMSubject: Re: Sermon Note: Mar. 21, Fifth Sunday in Lent, John 12:1-8Herb,I think you are surely on to something. I predicted last week in one of my blog rants, entitled “Who's afraid of the big bad cross?” The bloodless theology of the mainline church,” that there would be lots of sermons in our churches about our need to be “ambassadors of reconciliation,” but few on why Paul says we are, which is because of the reconciliation that God has already accomplished for us through the cross of Jesus Christ.Sure enough, on Sunday I heard a (good) sermon on reconciliation, but the cross was not mentioned.So why do we like the word “reconciliation,” and not the word “atonement,” which translate the same word in Greek? I believe it speaks to your point, reconciliation is something we need to do, atonement is something only God does.You wrote:I wonder is John doesn't introduce Judas and his comment on being responsible to the needs of the poor because this is what the Church normally does. The cross is such a hard pill for us to take. We really are much more comfortable with a God who is almighty and demands not love but sacrifice. Making sacrifice shifts the focus from God to us. We feel so much better when the cross fades and our sacrifice shines brightly. Maybe this is always the tendency of the Church, it is foolishness to the wise and a stumbling block to the strong. Putting these words, the words that are always on the tip of our tongue in the mouth of Judas may be John's way of saying, "Don't go there, keep you eye on the prize, the cross of Christ in which we boast."I think you are right, but of course I see the cross everywhere. To see my full rant, it is here:Best,Rick
Jean Easland
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to confessing-christ+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
Richard Floyd
Timothy Haut
Here is a short poem I wrote a few years ago on this Gospel passage. I hope you find it meaningful:
MARY'S HAIR
Her sister,
Laying plates in their places
And straightening the napkins once more
Did not notice at first--
Nor did her brother,
Still wide-eyed, fresh from the tomb,
Sipping wine
That had never tasted so sweet.
They did not notice
As Mary
Stepped through the door
Letting down her long, black hair,
Shaking it free
For her a tender, holy oblation.
She had seen the road-weary feet,
Noticed the scars, the scratches,
And knelt, lifting the heel in her palm,
Spilling precious oil,
Spilling her heart,
Spilling love itself
Until its fragrance filled the room.
Her eyes filled with tears.
As somewhere outside,
A dog barked,
And a hammer rang against wood.
--Timothy Haut, March, 2007
Richard Floyd
R
Jean Easland
the divine in the common good of everyday life! The prairie is kind of a
monestary like that----------thanks. Roger
----- Original Message -----
From: "Timothy Haut" <timot...@yahoo.com>
To: <confessi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: Sermon Note: Mar. 21, Fifth Sunday in Lent, John 12:1-8 -
RECONCILIATION/ATONEMENT - words/meanings
MARY'S HAIR
--Timothy Haut, March, 2007
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Richard Floyd
George Demetrion
I especially appreciated Hunsinger's article, "Are the Gospels Reliable), which you referenced. http://faith-theology.blogspot.com/2010/01/are-gospels-reliable-letter-to-young.html
I thought the entire piece persuasive on the ultimate historical inconconclusiveness of the reliability of the gospels. In the article his note that, while both Bauckman, in Jesus and the Eye Witnesses (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802863906?ie=UTF8&tag=faithandtheol-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0802863906) and NT Wright in the Ressurection of the Son of God
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0800626796?ie=UTF8&tag=faithandtheol-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0800626796 ) overstate the case on the historical reliability of the gospel narrative, these texts are replete with keen insight and information that shed a great deal of light on the relationship between history and faith. In the final analysis, Hunsinger points to the ultimate wager of faith when placed into juxtaposition to anything and everything else; a wager that demands one's total commitment always in faith in search of sight, which calls us both to radical life and radical death. To quote the final words Hunsinger writes in that article:
"No one who is not willing to take this risk should venture to read the NT. But many of those who have turned to it spiritually have found, throughout the centuries, that they end up saying with Peter: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (Jn. 6:68). I suggest that you might want to read the opening chapters in The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonheoffer."
Following along a similar trajectory, I draw on 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 as a source of hermeneutical understanding; "That all this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them." Thus, on the issue of Jesus' actual self-perception, I don't know, and based on the Corinthian passage it may not ultimately matter, even as NT Wright makes a plausible case in the Victory of God that Jesus self identified as the Jewish Messiah, though not likely the second person in the Trinity; the broader point being the reconciliation by God of us in and through Christ even if the historical Jesus went to the cross more in faith than in sight in a great deal of apprehension at the human level as one might surmise from his quote from Psalm 22. At the very least, the apprehension exhibited at Gethsemane and the sense of abandonment at the trial and the cross had to be real in some fundamental, ultimately penultimate sense for the very sake, if nothing else, than the guilt offering itself in which it was our high priest, the very king of Glory that sweat real drops of blood.
I sought to draw this out in a sermon I titled, "The Old Rugged Cross (http://www.ctucc.org/resources/sermons/oldruggedcross.pdf) based initially on Genesis 22.
Best,
George Demetrion
From: rfl...@berkshire.rr.com
Subject: Re: Sermon Note: Mar. 21, Fifth Sunday in Lent, John 12:1-8 - RECONCILIATION/ATONEMENT - words/meanings
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:19:35 -0400
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
Willis E. Elliott
Willis E. Elliott
herb.davis
Richard Floyd
Richard Floyd
Bct...@aol.com
Richard Floyd
fcba%40comcast.net
Jane & Rick,
Two related thoughts:
1) After I had been ordained and preaching for about 10 years an older preacher saw me feverishly reading Raymond Brown in preparation for a Maundy Thursday service. He looked at me and said: "Chris, why don't you just read the passage and tell them what you think it means?"
2) Rev. Bob Anderson (of York) and I have a theory that we agree on. (There is so much that we don't!) We believe that the first half of a preacher's time of preaching involves a frantic search for things to put into the sermon. The second half of a preacher's life involves the difficult work of cutting things out.
(Notice, Rick, these two things say the same thing you have said in a differing manner.)
Chris Anderson
God Is Still Laughing
http://home.comcast.net/~fcba
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Floyd" <rfl...@berkshire.rr.com>
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:14:43 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: Sermon Note: - RECONCILIATION/ATONEMENT -
Jane,
John Cedarleaf
Its interesting, at least for me, that the older I get and the longer I preach, the less time I spend in preparation. I know this sounds like heresy but what I mean is that all the note taking and reading Raymond Brown has been done and a lot of it clinks around in my head as I write the sermon. Words are flow more freely and I play around with them, humor is less forced when it happens...oh, I'm interested in new things that are written or said about a particular text, but I don't feel I have to share all the scholarship. I remember someone saying years ago, maybe I was in seminary, or maybe even before, that the preacher didn't have to take his(her) toolbox up to the pulpit and slam it down......I've always remembered that; or that story of the first year seminary student who was asked to preach at his home church on Christmas Eve and before reading Luke 20 introduced it by saying: "The Christmas myth is written in........Of course no one on this list ever has done that! Words and poetry are more important now than they were.....hopefully not the old "three points and a poem" stuff, but playing with words. Herb does this very well. Finally, Herb's notes and all your comments are great helps these days.
John
Jane & Rick,
�
Two related thoughts:
�
1) After I had been ordained and preaching for about 10 years an older preacher saw me feverishly reading Raymond Brown in preparation for a Maundy Thursday service. He looked at me and said: "Chris, why don't you just read the passage and tell them what you think it means?"
�
2) Rev. Bob Anderson (of York)�and I have a theory that we agree on. (There is so much that we don't!) We believe that the first half of a preacher's time of preaching involves a frantic search for things to put into the sermon. The second half of a preacher's life involves the�difficult work of cutting things out.
�
(Notice, Rick, these two things say the same thing you have said in a differing manner.)
�
Chris Anderson
God Is Still Laughing
http://home.comcast.net/~fcba
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Floyd" <rfl...@berkshire.rr.com>
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:14:43 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: Sermon Note: - �RECONCILIATION/ATONEMENT �-
Jane,
A few thoughts from an old preacher regarding your comments:
Too much info is good for sermon preparation, too little is bad.
Too much info is bad for the sermon itself. �
So good preaching is really good decision making about what to use and what not to use, and it gets hard to cut our precious insights and discoveries.
Good preachers are like good writers in that the final product is tightly thought out and carefully edited. �It took me years to learn this.
My early ones had a �kitchen sink� quality about them. �i just used everything but. �I'm sure yours are much better,
Best,
Rick
On Mar 22, 2010, at 10:18 PM, Bct...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Herb and others who were discussing Herb's sermon note for this past Sunday, for John 12:1-8,
�Herb, thank you again for your sermon note and for generating�the excellent discussion that ensued.� I have now caught up�on reading the postings, including the wonderful poem�Timothy Haut wrote, and Rick Floyd's interesting blog entry.��I wanted to tell you that there was another twist in the development of my sermon.� I had the hardest time pulling my disparate piece parts together, and crafting a message for my particular congregation, and for One Great Hour of Sharing Sunday.��As�it turns out, I did not "keep my eye on Mary" but moved my eye over to Judas.� I also talked a lot about God's and Jesus' extravagant love, which I noticed tonight that Rick did too in his blog.� I should have called my sermon "God's economics," but unfortunately I had already picked another title which was published in the bulletin!� How hard it must be to pick titles in advance each week, every week, year after year!��The folks in my congregation liked my sermon, and they say I am getting better each time.� But I feel a certain disappointment in it, because I did not end up using many of the interesting things I had been reflecting on.� On the other hand, I shared a couple of the ideas with you this Open Forum,�and I used a few of them in the prayers, so I guess the ideas will circulate�after all, as ideas do.��Thanks again for all the stimulating discussions around John 12:1-8.��Jane�
fcba%40comcast.net
John,
I recall the story of the first sermon that Billy Graham preached at a rescue mission. He had worked on three sermons and when he got up there he ended up preaching all three of them at once.
I gotta go to a Mercersburg meeting. I agree with what you said. I have found that I can take a short nap, wake up and often have the whole sermon done in an hour and half!!! (Obviuously I have been thinking and praying about it during the week.) I remember the early days when I was still working on it moments before teaching Sunday School.
Chris
God Is Still Laughing
http://home.comcast.net/~fcba
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cedarleaf" <jn...@choiceonemail.com>
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:05:26 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: Jane & Rick: on preaching
Chris,
Its interesting, at least for me, that the older I get and the longer I preach, the less time I spend in preparation. I know this sounds like heresy but what I mean is that all the note taking and reading Raymond Brown has been done and a lot of it clinks around in my head as I write the sermon. Words are flow more freely and I play around with them, humor is less forced when it happens...oh, I'm interested in new things that are written or said about a particular text, but I don't feel I have to share all the scholarship. I remember someone saying years ago, maybe I was in seminary, or maybe even before, that the preacher didn't have to take his(her) toolbox up to the pulpit and slam it down......I've always remembered that; or that story of the first year seminary student who was asked to preach at his home church on Christmas Eve and before reading Luke 20 introduced it by saying: "The Christmas myth is written in........Of course no one on this list ever has done that! Words and poetry are more important now than they were.....hopefully not the old "three points and a poem" stuff, but playing with words. Herb does this very well. Finally, Herb's notes and all your comments are great helps these days.
John
Jane & Rick,
Two related thoughts:
1) After I had been ordained and preaching for about 10 years an older preacher saw me feverishly reading Raymond Brown in preparation for a Maundy Thursday service. He looked at me and said: "Chris, why don't you just read the passage and tell them what you think it means?"
2) Rev. Bob Anderson (of York) and I have a theory that we agree on. (There is so much that we don't!) We believe that the first half of a preacher's time of preaching involves a frantic search for things to put into the sermon. The second half of a preacher's life involves the difficult work of cutting things out.
(Notice, Rick, these two things say the same thing you have said in a differing manner.)
Chris Anderson
God Is Still Laughing
http://home.comcast.net/~fcba
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Floyd" <rfl...@berkshire.rr.com>
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:14:43 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: Sermon Note: - RECONCILIATION/ATONEMENT -
Jane,
A few thoughts from an old preacher regarding your comments:
Too much info is good for sermon preparation, too little is bad.Too much info is bad for the sermon itself.
So good preaching is really good decision making about what to use and what not to use, and it gets hard to cut our precious insights and discoveries.
Good preachers are like good writers in that the final product is tightly thought out and carefully edited. It took me years to learn this.
My early ones had a “kitchen sink” quality about them. i just used everything but. I'm sure yours are much better,Best,Rick
On Mar 22, 2010, at 10:18 PM, Bct...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Herb and others who were discussing Herb's sermon note for this past Sunday, for John 12:1-8,
Herb, thank you again for your sermon note and for generating the excellent discussion that ensued. I have now caught up on reading the postings, including the wonderful poem Timothy Haut wrote, and Rick Floyd's interesting blog entry.I wanted to tell you that there was another twist in the development of my sermon. I had the hardest time pulling my disparate piece parts together, and crafting a message for my particular congregation, and for One Great Hour of Sharing Sunday. As it turns out, I did not "keep my eye on Mary" but moved my eye over to Judas. I also talked a lot about God's and Jesus' extravagant love, which I noticed tonight that Rick did too in his blog. I should have called my sermon "God's economics," but unfortunately I had already picked another title which was published in the bulletin! How hard it must be to pick titles in advance each week, every week, year after year!The folks in my congregation liked my sermon, and they say I am getting better each time. But I feel a certain disappointment in it, because I did not end up using many of the interesting things I had been reflecting on. On the other hand, I shared a couple of the ideas with you this Open Forum, and I used a few of them in the prayers, so I guess the ideas will circulate after all, as ideas do.
Thanks again for all the stimulating discussions around John 12:1-8.
Jane
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to confessing-christ+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
Wanda Lester
Willis E. Elliott
----- Original Message -----From: George DemetrionSent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 9:28 PMSubject: RE: # 4 "The Cry For Forgiveness"Thank you Chris,
Very thoughtful,
Clearly, you've read many of Finney's key texts including Systematic Theology, which I find exceedingly well grounded biblically particularly if one excepts the precepts of his "new divinity" moral government theology as having, if nothing else, reasonable plausibility as a viable theological construction governed in covenantal precepts.
To the texts you read I would also bring to the attention of the list, the various texts edited by Lois Guifford Parkhurst, Jr titled Principles of Liberty, Principles of Holiness, Principles of Faith, Principles of Devotion, and more. These collections represent Finney at his sermonesque best and behave a different tonality than that of his Systematic Theology, a valuable text in its own right.
I do think the label "Pelegian" --a term, along with antinomian perfectionism he rejects about himself, is overstated. Closer to the mark, I think, would be a self attribution as an Arminian leaning Calvinist. he did, after all, accept, with much grappling and nuance, the doctrine of Election (last couple of chapters in his Systematic Theology and he certainly did accept the priority of grace over works; or perhaps better stated, he accepted the biblical notion of grace-based works in the Jamesian sense.
In terms of Finney's "unbalance;" of course that depends on where you are coming from. The reality is that he worked diligently to ground his ultimate truth claims in a 19th century-based canonically rich biblical framework. His sermons are seeped in thick biblical exposition, clearly reflecting his emphasis on the Holy Spirit, in which the work and person of Christ and the sovereignty of God are far from neglected in his work. What he did reject (and with more than a little caricature) was his understanding of 17th-19th century Calvinism, particularly when cherished doctrines became expressed as gospel truths themselves. As I said to a member in our study group, the canonical Scripture is the basis through which to evaluate theological doctrine rather than Calvinist doctrine being the basis of interpreting the Bible.
I hear what you are saying on Finney's limited understanding of the church, though that critique has more relevance to his early revivalistic era from about 1825-1835 than his work in the 1840s and 1850s where he sought long term stabilization of authentic Christian identity and community. A touching point was his 1851-1852 revival in Hartford supported by his good friend Horace Bushnell. Bushnell's Christian Nurture and Finney's Lectures of Revivals of Religion are commonly depicted as antithetical texts in the household of mid-19th century American Protestantism. For a balanced view on Finney one would also need to consult his Letters on Religious Revivals written in the 1840s. In any event, by the time that Finney got to Hartford, the convergences between Finney's emphasis on revivals and Bushnell's views of Christian Nurture were much closer in emphasis than commonly depicted.
In terms of Finney's view of sin, he did believe it was a perpetual problem and temptation, though based on his view of sanctification (see below) he did believe that in principle it was possible to remain in a state of entire sanctification in this life. More fundamentally, however, this doctrine acted as a heuristic designed to stimulate a profound and enduring proclivity toward holiness based, though, on grace and not works even as he did emphasize the importance of means. One need to view Finney within the context of the broader holiness movement, a topic that many Calvinists like J.I. Packer grappled with, with a great deal of attention. My longer term work on Finnney is to interpret him through the interpretive lens of the 17th-20th century Anglo-American Puritan tradition in which I think one can, with important caveats noted, find some very intriguing convergences with the likes of John Owens, Jeremiah Burrougys, Jonathan Edwards, and J.C. Ryle. Perhaps more later:
In the meantime, to close this I am copying a section of a short essay I wrote in my preparation of a study session on Finney, focusing on his views of Entire Sanctification
Best,
George Demetrion
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Entire Sanctification
Entire sanctification implies entire conformity of the heart and life to all the known will of God, however it may be known, to both physical and moral law as far as they are known (Charles G. Finney, Principles of Sanctification, p. 49).
Faith is an indispensable condition for the fulfillment of this promise of sanctification. It is entirely impossible that we should love God with all the heart without confidence in Him. God inspires love in man in no other way by revealing himself in such a way as to inspire confidence—that confidence which works by love (p. 65).
A comprehensive review of Finney’s theology is well beyond what can be tackled here. I focus on his central doctrine of entire sanctification, put together in 1840 in a single collection, Views of Sanctification. http://www.gospeltruth.net/1840views.htm
One of the most fundamental thing to consider is that Finney’s religious understanding emerged in the crucible of experience based on what he perceived as the direct illumination of the Holy Spirit upon his consciousness (see Rom 9:1). Through this encounter, the radical quest for holiness as the basis for a right relationship with the living God became the ultimate concern of his entire post-conversion life. His theology became crystallized in the unfolding of this quest through his riveting pulpit encounters and in his intense spiritual wrestling with the Lord Almighty. This passion he carried out throughout his post-conversion life as a preacher, a teacher of systematic theology and in his role as husband and father in his unrelenting passion to embody the will of God with radical integrity as illuminated in Scripture, in his own consciousness, in the response of others, and in the final analysis in his perception of the power and grace of the Holy Spirit.
Finney rejected what he grasped from the Calvinist teachings of his Presbyterian brethren, which at least initially was not substantial. That was little matter to him as he read the Bible with passionate fervor, often on his knees, and stayed with key passages until God seared their meaning into his consciousness through what he believed was the illumination of the Holy Spirit. To that he applied the keenness of his razor sharp mind in ultimately developing a systematic theology based on the core precepts of the New Haven Theology focusing on the moral government of God’s universal benevolence and righteousness as its core grounding focus. He articulated this work in incredible detail through monthly and quarterly publications ultimately organized into book collections, culminating in his massive Systematic Theology.
Finney defined sanctification as nothing other than that of “living a [consistently] holy life in appreciation for being justified” as a redeemed sinner, “a life that honors the Holy God who has loved and saved us” (editors introduction). As a function of holiness, “salvation for the individual involves the total process of justification, sanctification, and glorification.” In this respect salvation has past, present, and future implications in which enduring to the end has eternal as well as earthly implications as part of God’s process of ultimately glorifying creation in the New Heaven and New Earth. On Finney’s interpretation, this called for the unrelenting pursuit of holiness in this life, what he referred to as sanctification or consecration through radical fidelity to the Holy Spirit. By entire sanctification Finney meant “The consecration of the whole being to God” (p. 16). This, in turn, presupposed the unity of moral action, another key Finneyite doctrine, that the choice of an ultimate end, whatever that end may be, must be for the time that it is enacted, the supreme preference of the will.
On this assumption, Finney defined sin as “the supreme preference of self-gratification” and holiness as “the supreme preference of the good of being” in which it is plainly impossible to make opposite choices at the same time, that is, to choose opposite and conflicting ultimate ends.” Anything less than the supreme good, even ambivalence itself, which in its very ambivalence reflects a unified state of will is sin. This is reinforced by Finney’s second corollary that intensity of choice also matters in which the call for holiness requires nothing short of seeking God’s will with all one’s heart, soul, strength, and mind in which pursuing God’s will with any lesser intent is sin http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/Unity.of.Moral.Action.html.
Finney defined entire sanctification as a decision made in real time to be wholly consecrated to God, which he distinguished from permanent sanctification as perpetually secured, a view which he rejected, and by implication and explication linked to the Calvinist doctrine of “irresistible grace.” Viewed as a function of the will Finney defined entire sanctification as that which was consistent with natural human capacity based on Luke 10:27, which by definition set the boundaries and circumference in the potential of human ability which rejected any notion of sin as innate physical depravity beyond our capacity to do anything about. Finney never doubted that humankind still had a tendency toward sin which he defined as particular acts (sinning) rather than a state of being as such (sin). Sin, therefore, was nothing more and nothing less than the the result of conscious willing rather than innate incapacity to be or get right with God. Viewed thusly, the seat of moral accountability resides in the voluntary faculty of the will only (p. 20) rather than in “the substance of a person’s body or soul,” (p.23) in the involuntary emotions or thoughts that just spring up as such. The various thoughts and emotions that do arise may be influenced by prior sinning. Yet in the immediacy and unity of moral action, such prior action does not play a role in the momentary act of entire sanctification at any given time and place based on the precept of making every thought and action captive to Christ in the actual happening of their ongoing occurrence.
As a potential current state realized through radical commitment to holiness as determined by the settled mind and carried out through the will, entire sanctification as Finney defines it, does not imply:
· That watchfulness, prayer, and effort are no longer needed in the power and efficacy of the Holy Spirit.
· That temptation to sin will not be strong and needed to be struggled hard against in the power and efficacy of the Holy Spirit.
· That we are dependent on our own capabilities and not the grace of God at every moment of our lives.
· That there is no more growth in grace.
· That the sanctified soul will feel always and at all times sure that his feelings and conduct are perfectly right.
Entire sanctification does imply that the law of God only requires the entire consecration of the powers we have as we exercise them in the present and that as these powers increase so does our obligation which will continue to increase throughout eternity. (pp. 33-36).
Finney drew on a wide array of Scripture in making his claim. Key verses that he prayed and preached over until the Holy Spirit revealed their nugget to him in the searing and sealing of his own consciousness included 1 Thess 5:23-24, Like 10:27, James 4:17, Eph 3:14-19, 4:10-16, and 6:16, Col 4:12, 2 Cor 7:1, 1 Jn 5:4, Heb 8:8-12, Jude 24. Finney related an incident in his early conversion period where in reading the Diary of David Brainard (http://www.eternallifeministries.org/brainerd.htm) he came to an initial conclusion that he “never expected to make any considerable attainments in holiness in this life.” He drew that from ‘a natural inference” from Brainard based on the notion of equating sin with “the theory of physical depravity which he held.” Finney concluded that if holiness remained elusive to such an apostle like figure as Brainard, there would be little hope for him “to expect such a thing” (p. 83). Shortly thereafter Finney came to the conclusion that “if there is anything that is important to high attainments in holiness, and to the progress of the work of sanctification in this life, it is the adaptation of the principle of total abstinence of sin” (pp. 83-84). Laying the groundwork in Views of Sanctification for what he ultimately articulated in his most formal statement, Systematic Theology (1851), Finney was convinced that unless such as doctrine as entire sanctification were enacted upon with an intent of irresolute seriousness in the heartfelt belief that it was both a desirable and attainable objective, evangelists and pastors would be called upon “to do their work over again every few months, as a temperance worker would who permits the moderate use of alcohol” (p. 84).
In the final analysis, Finney was reacting against what he viewed as a dominating Calvinist dogmatism that he thought impeded the radical pursuit of holiness that was essential for the long term abidance of individuals, congregations, and larger inter-denominational communities of evangelical believers essential to convert a nation. That combined with a lawyer-like notion of common sense realism on the utter absurdity if not downright immorality of contending that while one in principle is able to and certainly is required to repent to be right with God, “it is certain that you never will be in this life either in your own strength or the strength of God.” Speaking from “personal experience”(p. 84) on the subject, such a belief would inhibit the very pursuit of sanctification as a radical enterprise especially as interpreted in his underlying belief of the unity of moral action which provided a psychological and philosophical premise to his theology. Thus, the work of abiding faith through the power and grace of the Holy Spirit only came home to him when it dawned upon him that that the radical pursuit of entire sanctification in this life was not only attainable, but the essential work to which evangelicals were called for any serious realization of the promises and evocations of the Lord’s prayer (Matt 6:9-13) in 19th century Protestant America.
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:24:34 +0000
From: fc...@comcast.net
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: # 4 "The Cry For Forgiveness"
Dear George & Jane and other Confessors,
I will not put my responses in red because WIllis finds it hard to read colors but they will be in this bigger print. I am cutting out soon because my bride and I are walking our new Dachtshund when she walks in the door. (I have a lot more to say but the discussion on Finney would take days.)
From: "George Demetrion" <gdeme...@msn.com>
To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 7:13:13 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: # 4 "The Cry For Forgiveness"
Thanks Chris(t),
What is your best thinking about Finney and how extensively have you studied his work?
I am one of the few that has ever read his Sytematic Theology. I was totally into Finney for many years. I read his Autobiography, Sanctification, Lectures on Theology (smaller than his Systematic Theology), True Saints, God's Love for a Sinning World, one named something like The Power of the Spirit (I had a great and powerful spiritual experince reading that one!!!) and the wonderful collection by Donald Dayton entitled Reflections on Revival. Besides these primary sources I have read quite a bit of related primary and secondary sources.
FInney was an amazing evangelist, preacher, social critic and organizer. He understood how to reach people, he didn't allow what was popular to stop him from teaching what he thought was true. The truth is that one cannot understand Billy Graham and Dwight L. Moody without understanding him.
But he was a Pelagian. Yes, he believed in grace but he held out the American version of the rugged individualism of the Jackson Age so well he moved into Pelagianism. That cannot be doubted.I could say more but suffice it to say I needed to hear about "simul justus et peccator" and in Finney I did not hear it. It is largely because of him that sadly much of what is called "evangelicalism" actually would not be label evangelical by Luther.
I raise the questions because my wife and I have read together three substantial collections of his sermons, which I find very deep and powerful. Moreover, he is a very insightful commentator on the Bible, which served for him as his foundational text.
At the very least, I believe his cumulative work adds a great deal from a heuristic (or irenic perspective). Moreover if the canonical Scripture is the basis through which to interpret Reformed theology rather than the reverse, at the very least, Calvinistic perspectives which label Finney as a heretic, are, to say the least, overblown.
One can easily be a "heretic." When I read Richard Norris' THE CHRISTOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY where he goes through the discussion of the nature of Christ from Melito of Sardis to the definition at Chalcedon I often identified with views that later were seen to be "heretical." And I had been a pastor for 15 years and I had gone to Gordon-Conwell Seminary!!! Heresy does not necessarily mean that one is not a Christian or that one is a terrible person. A heresy is when one speaks a truth but it is unbalanced in relation to something else. FInney taught the truth that humans were responsible. He merely did not teach the paradox that humans are also victims. Historically he might be defended by showing that some of the Princeton grads only taught that humans were victims and not responsible but I do not want to go there now.
I will say more later; but given his theological emphases on holiness and the Third Person of the Trinity, I was wondering what your current best thinking on him is.
Finney was a godly man and his character had many wonderful things. When he retired as pastor in Oberlin he did not butt in on the pastor that followed him.
His basic problem was his lack of understanding on how the Spirit speaks through the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. In that sense he shows both the best and the worst of Protestantism. The best is that he had the freedom to question what was popular, the worst was that he did not take time to study how God had spoken through the church for over 1800 years. Somewho he thought that though he could teach others God had never taught anyone before him! He thought that if God spoke to hiim in a certain way in his Bible reading that was good enough. Therefore he did not study the great controverseys of the chruch with the humility that such studies require. Personally I think Nevin's work on THE EARLY CHURCH is more important as a criticism of Finney than THE ANXIOUS BENCH. But that is another whole story.
BTW, I believe Nevin's text The Anxious Bench verges on caricature when Finney's cumulative work, especially from the late 1830s on is brought into consideration.
Best,
George