|
|
Rating:  -
Charles Finney's book on Systematic Theology inroduces and reinforces the true Sovereignty of God in such a way that the reader can take the teaching from each page and apply it to ones life in a edifying,uplifting and faith increasing manner.Finney's truthful representation of the Trinity gives the reader hope in the words of Jesus (Matt 7:7-8)
"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. If one would pray before reading Finney's books and ask the Holy Spirit to lead into all truth the thirsty soul will find living waters from the throne of God and by drinking from the cup of Christ,that person will never thirst again.
Rating:  -
In this review I mean no ill will towards those who may hold Finney in high regards and I write here in love.
Finney certainly did advance far beyond the Cal/Armin debate, as one review noted. I believe Finney to have taught full orbed Pelagianism (see below). If you are an Arminian brother in Christ I would suggest Systematic Theologies by Arminian theologians like Norman Geisler or John Miley or even Ludwig Ott as they should prove most helpful and less heretical!
With Mike Desario's mention of "cheap grace" being preached today I heartily concur!!! Amen!!! God's people are sick!!! But I believe the tares far out number the wheat (thanks Rick Warren for his empty purpose movement and the designing of gatherings to appeal to the unchurched -unsaved masses...thanks to Finney's anxious bench, alter calls and sinner's prayers) and often times what we see as "christian" or call "christian" is simply the tares we are observing. God, in His grace, will conform His people to their Savior (Rom.8:29), He will complete the work He began (phil.1:6). That is His promise! He will break down the sin in our lives thus correcting the one's he loves. Sadly, I don't believe Finney to be the answer I believe that he heaps heavy burdens upon God's people and takes the entire package of salvation (including, election, regeneration, justification, sanctification and glorification)out of God's hand and places it within the hands of man. Finney's Theology is a theology of self-reformation! The reason why so many lead unchanged lives is simply because their lives were never changed to begin with. A tree is known by its fruit and a spring can not bring forth both pure and bitter waters and out of the treasure of his heart one brings forth his goods, thus the regenerated will bring forth good fruit and fresh water, they must as that is their new nature!
As noted in other reviews, Finney unquestionably denied imputation (ex,pg.263)of all forms, which Arminius never did but Pelagius certainly did! With all imputation denied, the door must be open to a works righteousness system and not the "He has clothed me in robes of righteousness" cry of Isaiah 61:10 also the words of David mentioned by Paul is rendered void "Blessed is the man to whom God imputes righteousness" Rom. 4:6.
Finney seemed to loath the idea or at best re-define the understanding of Grace, as Charles even denied the Arminian notion (Catholic/Weslean/Arminian really) of a prevenient grace Lecture 21 Gracious Ability - "they have the natural ability to obey God..a gracious ability to do duty or to obey God is an absurdity." pg. 325. Thus here too Finney is no longer Arminian but Pelagian. "Entire obedience to God's law is possible on the ground of natural ability....all the law demands is the exercise of whatever strength we (naturally) have.... the law requires nothing more than the right use of whatever strength we have...on the grounds of natural ability." pg. 382
As Charles Hodge, a contemporary of Finney, noted in his 'Systematic Theology vol 3' pgs 8,9 "The system of Professor Finney is a remarkable product of relentless logic. It is valuable as a warning. It shows to what extremes the human mind may be carried when abandoned to it own guidance."
As B.B. Warfield said of Finney's theology, "a system of morals from which God might be eliminated entirely without essentially changing its character." 'Perfectionism #2' pg 193
In love for the body
soli deo gloria
Rating:  -
The more controversial of Finney's thought is explained. The first part of the book is the foundation for Finney's thought from which the rest will be understood. Because Finney began with what was controversial and he was not able to complete a second volume, this systematic theology is incomplete by normal standards. This book was purchased for research purposes and was to that end helpful. Rating the book is difficult, because of the type of work it is and the variety of standards which could be used. This work is polemical, not conciliatory.
Rating: -
Finney's systematic theology is less a systematic theology in the purest sense of the term, and more a treatment of his moral government ideas applied to theological issues. I don't believe Finney advocated works-based theology as such, although many others have (obviously) reached different conclusions. What Finney recognized is that both components of a God-person relationship are real, living, thinking, free agents, and that, just as any other relationship requires the relational consent of both relatives, so does a relationship with God require mutual consent. YES, God made the first 'move'... YES, His desire for relationship can be very influential upon another free will. But to deny that we also play a part is to make God responsible for the choices of all others, who cease to become moral agents, instead becoming puppets and props in God's cosmic puppet show.
Read Finney's theology to get a good grasp of what free moral agency is, and what it entitles and entails. You may not agree with it, especially if you already think along Calvinistic lines. But even Calvinists should study Finney, if only to wrestle with the very legitimate challenges he introduces. I'm not any kind of Calvinist, so I didn't start reading tihs with Calvin-tinted spectacles on. I was fortunate not to bring that baggage to the fore. Finney's theology is compelling, challenging, and logical. It should be studied, on SOME level, by anyone who considers themself a serious theoloy student.
Rating: -
I first read Finney because of references to him in the works of A.W. Tozer (one of my favorite authors). Finney's life may have been Spirit-filled, but his understanding most certainly was not. I object to the reviewer who compares him to Jonathan Edwards--Finney takes his lawyer's mind and twists the scripture to fit his understanding of justice. His theology is indeed rational and logical--but it is in no way biblical. He proves that "the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing" (1 Cor. 1:18). Truly it was folly to Finney.
He plainly teaches against the graciousness of God and the saving power of the blood of Christ--arguing from a multiplicity of "laws" that Christ's sacrifice could not atone for our sins, but that we must pay the price for them ourselves by good works. Out of this flow Finney's concept of the Holy Spirit as the agent by which we are enabled to live perfect and holy lives--through which we are justified before God and satisfy His divine justice. No teaching has been more thoroughly refuted and despised as this: that man is saved by works, not of grace or through faith.
In fact, I wonder that Finney mentions Christ at all! What need is there for a Savior if we are fully able to save ourselves? Indeed, Finney believes that Christ died to set an example for us, so we would not take God's mercy for granted and "continue in sin that grace may abound" (Rom. 6:1). Therefore the Son of God, the blessed Lord and Savior, has shed His precious blood for no greater reason than to show us what happens if we sin?! Such heresy has rarely been uttered even by the lips of the most defiled sinner! What is more distressing is that so many today actually BELIEVE this!
I do not despise Finney as a brother in Christ, nor do I deny that He was greatly used of God in his generation to awaken many to the need for godliness and faithfulness in these last days. But I DO deny that he taught the truth concerning salvation--indeed, that he had any semblance of understanding at all. This reaches far beyond the Arminian/Calvinist debate. This theological system is founded upon the most destructive of all heresies--the denial of salvation by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and not of works (Eph. 2:8-9). Let us not be like those who "seeing do not percieve and hearing do not understand" (Isa. 6:9).
|
