Charles Finney Challenge Pt 2

0:02 Looking at our world from a theological perspective. This is the Theology Central podcast making Theology Central. Good morning, Good morning, good morning. It is Friday, August the twenty third, twenty twenty four. It is currently nine forty am Central Time, and I am coming to you live from the Theology Central studio located right here in Abilene, Texas. Now, many of you know that we are currently involved in kind of a challenge. I am challenging you to take your sermons two point oh app open it up and search for sermons on Charles Finnie. We're calling this the Charles Finni Challenge. This is going to go on probably at least till Monday. I don't know how many you've listened to already, but start looking for sermons on Charles Finnie.

0:52 And you may be asking why are we looking up sermons on Charles Finnie? Well, where have you been? It all started because of an article or a printed sermon and the June seventh, twenty twenty four issue of the sort of the Lord newspaper, because they have a sermon here entitled the Holy Spirit and Revival. So we started looking up things about revival and going through this sermon I've given you lots of, maybe we can call them, very different perspectives than a large portion of Christianity may have in regards to revival. And then the next thing, you know, we ended up reviewing a podcast episode that's posted on the Sermon's two point oh app dealing with Charles Finnie and how he has shaped America, specifically speaking, how he has shaped you know, do you use much, do you use some? I don't know the exact term.

1:46 He has definitely shaped a lot of the thinking about revival that you find in evangelical and fundamental churches. There are probably people in your church who say certain things about revival, and I'm telling you it's coming from Charles Finny. It's not coming from scripture. Now you said, well, okay, well they were influenced by this man in church history, this man that's very famous. People talk about him a lot, people talk about him in regards to revival. So what's the big deal that they were influenced by Charles Finny. Well, here's the big deal. Charles FENNI wasn't a Christian. Charles FENNI was a full blown heretic. Charles Finny rejected. I mean, ultimately very key elements of what we would even say the doctrine of salvation is. And we have been looking at that. Now. Remember the first podcast that we review.

2:38 They immediately they started by saying, he is in hell. I kind of pushed back, said, well, come on, can we say that? And then I continued to look and then begin to realize, I mean he denies substitutionary atonement, he denies penal substitution, he denies that we are justified on the basis of an imputed righteousness. I'm like, okay, yeah, he has left. He has left Christianity. So remember I came back and said, Okay, I think they were right. I don't think there's any way to say Charles Finny was a Christian and is in heaven. So that then changes everything. If Charles Finnie is not a Christian, then why is his influence in so many churches? Why are so many Christians influenced by his revivalism his views on revival.

3:26 So I'm like, We've got to we need I need everyone to hear as many sermons as possible on Charles Finny because here's my hope you'll hear for those who may defend Charles Finnie. Maybe you'll hear some of their sermons. Those who criticize Charles FINNI, well, we can find out if the criticisms are in agreement disagreement. You can get you know, multiple sources. So for the goal is by the end of this weekend, you'll walk away knowing more about Charles Finnie than you ever did before this weekend began. And so hopefully you're listening to sermons on Charles. Now, my goal this morning was I wanted to turn on the microphone and what I wanted to do was pick a different sermon. Right, I'm like, we've already we reviewed part of the podcast episode. We're reviewed part of a sermon.

4:16 I could just move on to a third thing. But I'm like, you know what, I already have the sermon from yesterday cueued up. We didn't finish it, Let's just go back to that. I mean, it's already cued up. So we may not finish the whole thing, but at least want to go back to it now, the sermon that we are reviewing. I guess one of the reasons I want to do this is because and this does really bother me, and I may do a podcast episode just explaining my review philosophy. But most of you know my review philosophy number one. Whatever I review, I don't listen to it first, so the reactions are in real time. That means I'm not out there looking for a sermon like ooh, this is going to be really bad and I can bash it. That's never the goal. Second, especially in twenty twenty four with the Sermon's two point oh app challenge, I'm really reviewing things trying to get you to go listen to more sermons on the sermon's two point oh app. I'm really I'm promoting the sermon's two point oh app and supporting it as much as possible.

5:15 I know some people have a hard time when I offer criticism. They think that I don't know, they perceive it in a way that I'm not intending. Look, I can't help it if I listen to a sermon and I disagree. But in every single case, no matter, there's only been one time. There's only been one time, and all of my years are reviewing things where I stopped in the middle, I'm like, that's it. Not listening to this man ever again. And that was Jack Hibbs from Calvary chapel because him basically mocking people in Ukraine while they're dying. Okay, I could not, Oh, like, what is this pro Russian bash Ukraine nonsense coming from the pulpit?

5:55 I lost it. Okay. Other than that, no matter how much I may disagree, I tell what do I tell you? Go listen to the rest of the sermon, Go follow them. Go Just because I disagree. Just because I have critique doesn't mean I'm telling you not to listen. In almost every case, whatever sermon we reveal, I'm like, go give them more downloads, Go give them more streams, because I'm trying to get people to discover as much content as possible in the sermon's two point zero app so that we can all make use of it. When I offer criticism, Now, yes, sometimes I will admit it. I'll get done with a sermon and I'm frustrated and I'm irritated, and I hate that right. So, but that doesn't mean I don't want you to listen to that particular ministry. In many cases, I want you to go listen to it. Just because I disagree with it, I still want you to hear their perspective. I love all the different perspectives. I love the different, the variety, so that we can be challenged.

6:58 And sometimes, I mean, if you think about it, sometimes I think some of our most interesting studies have arisen because of sermon reviews that went really, really really bad. Because no matter how bad they go, in fact, typically the worst they end up. If it goes very badly, I almost inevitably try to turn it around and make it something positive by saying, Okay, I don't know what they did, I disagree with what they did. Let's stop talking about them. Now. Let's now take the passage saw maybe three ring a bell, and now let's work on it hour after hour after hour after hour until we can do something positive with it. So sometimes the bad sermon reviews turn into the most positive studies. See, that's not me just wanting to bash. That's me trying to get something from it. So I and again it's I'm gonna be listening to these sermons anyway, I'm gonna be saying these things about these sermons anyway. It's just either I'm gonna do it with a microphone on or a microphone off. Why not just do it with a microphone on and try to encourage people to listen to as many sermons as possible and to be challenged and to hear, and the people who listen get to hear not only my perspective the other perspective. But in this particular case, with the sermon that we're reviewing on Charles Finnie, this is one of those situations. And probably this is the reason I didn't want to switch. This has gone really well, this is I love this, I've loved this sermon. I've loved the information. Everything I don't I've not had. I mean,

8:29 I've had a little bit of disagreement, not so much with the person, but with how what he's how he's condemning Finny, I think is a condemnation that could be thrown at a good portion of Christianity, because I believe we do similar things. But other than that, that's not on him, that's on the rest of Christianity. Everything he's done has been amazing, it's been awesome, And so why switch to another sermon? Then that could lead to frustration. It may be more fun for you, but I just kind of want to say in a more positive situation, right, but we will you others, all right, So let's just however far this goes is, then we'll just stop it and you can go listen to the rest. But the sermon that we're currently reviewing is Revivalism and Charles Finny.

9:14 Revivalism and Charles Finny. This is from Calvary Baptist Church. It has eighty four downloads. We should we should get that over one hundred. Come on, people, go whenever I tell you about them, Go listen, go stream, go download all right, Revivalism and Charles Finnie from Calvary Baptist Church. Please look it up. Please download it now so that it's in your library on your app, and that you can finish it whenever you have the opportunity. But for now, pencils are rolling all over the disk. Let's do this currently basically the sermon here, he's talking about Finny and his rejection of well being justified by an imputed righteousness.

9:57 Here we go. You see the differ. That's a huge difference. Second false teaching of Charles Finny, the necessary implication of Finny's rejection of judicial justification by judicial What I mean is, when God declares us righteous on the basis of Jesus righteousness, are we actually righteous? No, Jesus is but his righteousness is imputed, is credited to us, and so therefore God declares us righteous by judicial what. I mean is in God's law court. In other words, so. For example, we do we understand this a little bit. I think something like. I would just add a slight clarification. This is how you should answer the question when we are justified by Christ, are we righteous? And you should say yes and no. Yes, you are declared righteous in your position before God. You are righteous in your standing before God. You are declared to be righteous, You're seen as righteous. So in that sense, you're righteous in your standing. You're righteous before God. You're righteous in Christ. In Christ, you're a new creature. Old things have passed away all things that become new in Christ.

11:10 In your position, in your practice. No, you are not righteous. You are a sinner. That is not justifying our actions. That is acknowledging the reality that we sin continually and our practice and thought word indeed, by what we do and what we leave undone. Got a marriage would be something like this. So when you go many of you are married, some of you hope to be someday. When you go to the pastor or the justice of the peace or whatever, and you get married. What changes about your nature when you get married? When the person says I pronounce you man and wife, what changes about your nature? Do you become a different person? No, Sometimes your spouse might wish you had, but you don't.

12:01 Right. What happens is your state changes, the government now declares you married. Your judicial legal standing is different because you're now no longer single, but you're married. And so that means in legal settings there are various situations in which you're gonna be treated differently because you're married, all right, that your spouse is gonna be partner with you in things. And so that's an illustration, over simplistic illustration, but a illustration of the fact that God has judicially declared us righteous, not because we're actually righteous, but on the basis of Jesus righteousness. Now, this is a this is a controversial subject within Christianity, and you have to just acknowledge this. This is a controversial subject in Christianity. So let me try to explain this.

12:49 There are many Christians who typically they go to the Book of Ezekiel where it talks about the New Covenant and it says, I'm gonna remove the heart of flesh. I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna remove the heart of stone, give you a heart of flesh, something along those lines that now you're going to basically get rid of all your idols, and you're going to follow me, and you're going to obey me. And they bring and I know I'm not stating those verses correctly, but you get the basic idea, I'm gonna put a new heart in you, I'm going to remove the heart of stone, give you a heart of flesh. That type of thing, right, And they take that and they say that is us in salvation. Now, I've always argued, first, just look at the passage in His Equal it's about Israel. It's not about us, all right, that's number one. It's about Israel. There's a time God is going to save Israel. We've talked about that over and over and over. It's not about us. And the reason I know it's not about us is when because the passage seems to imply that you're not gonna sin anymore, you're basically going to be sinless, your sinful nature is going to be eradicated. Well, that's not us. When we are saved, our sinful nature is not eradicated. Now, this is where Christians get into. This is where it gets complicated because there's some passages that would seem to umploy, Well, we do get a new nature, and so some people believe you get a new nature, the old nature is gone and basically now you can say yes to God.

14:07 Notice sin, Well, that would seem to indicate we can be perfect. Well, we know two thousand years of church history that's not the case. The old nature is obviously still there. So some people believe we have a new nature and an old nature, and we have two natures. Some people believe we have a new heart, but the old heart is gone. So as the heart is the nature, are they synonymous? Are they different? How many different things is going on inside of us as a Christian? Do we have a new this or what like? And how do we understand when we understand new? Do we understand new in our position but not new in our practice? Here's what I know. I know this, you still have a sinful nature. And I know this. You still sin, and you sin all the time. You never love God with all your heart, mind, body, and soul. You never love your neighbor as yourself and when he says, bee holy as he is holy, and be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect, you never obey any of those commands anywhere close. And you are a constantly and sin because you have a sinful nature. Whatever else you want to say is inside of us. All I know is it does not. Oh, ultimately, it does not conquer the sinful nature, and it doesn't triumph over the sinful nature because the sinful nature is obviously more controlling. How do I know that? Because we cannot get to perfection. What keeps us from perfection our sinful nature, meaning the sinful nature then therefore has more control. Now I know that's controversial, but I'm being justified by an imputed righteousness. It's really not that controversial. God declares you to be righteous, but you're not righteous.

15:43 And his judicial justification. Because he rejected this, he also rejected what we call the penal satisfaction view of the Atonement, that is that Jesus daft paid the penalty that satisfied God for sin. Again, think about how serious this is. Denies that Jesus died in our place on the cross. In Finny's reasoning, and based on his nineteenth century American legal training. And this is what he says. He rejected the idea of Christ dying in our place bearing our sins vicariously on the cross. He viewed this doctrine is unfair. It's not fair for somebody else to be punished for you, or for you to be credited with somebody else's righteousness. He denied subsutionary atonement and said that it assumes that the atonement was a literal payment of a debt, which we have seen does not consist with the nature of the atonement. It is true that the atonement of itself does not secure the salvation of anyone.

16:37 What that's the false teaching. In rejecting a substitutionary atonement, Finny insisted instead opted for the governmental view of the atonement that stated that Christ's death was not in our place, but that it satisfied public justice. Here's what he's saying. What Finny would have taught was this. You could look it up in his Systematic Theology. Do note this. There is a modern publication of Systematic Theology by Charles Finny that's been cleaned up because people have read it and realized that there's a lot of problems in it, but Finny was a popular preacher, and so they've cleaned it up. If you get his original edition, which is available online for free, it's a no long ger under copyright. You can find it online. If you look it up and you read some of these sections in his systematic Theology, you'll see him saying exactly these things. And what he taught that was not that Jesus died to bear our sins in his body on the tree, not that Jesus died in our place and bore our sins. Thought he said that was not true. What he said was that Jesus died to show that God was angry with sin.

17:37 That's the governmental view. In other words, the law was broken and a punishment had to be paid, but it wasn't paid in our place. It was just a governmental public justice satisfaction. And if I cannot verify that claim that the modern editions have cleaned up Phineas theology, If the modern editions have cleaned up Phineas theology, whichever Christian published company did that, you should probably no longer support that Christian publishing company because that is utterly that's utterly wrong, that's sinful, because now that giving people a complete misunderstanding of someone's theology, and then they're going to go support and teach that man's theology. But it's not his theology. It's some Christian publishing company cleaned it up. I hope that's not true.

18:25 I hope that's not accurate that way I would The only way to know is I'd have to go find a copy of the original Finny Systematic Theology and then supposedly a modernized version. But if any Christian publishing company cleaned up Finny's absolutely heretical theology, that would be so wrong. All right, But you see that governmental or moral idea of the atonement that Jesus just died basically as an example of God hating sin, You do realize that leads to some question if Jesus is just dying as an example of God's hatred for sin, but he's not bearing our sin as a substitutionary atonement. He's not you know, he's not satisfying, he's not propitiating the wrath of God for us. Then so Jesus is just innocent, just dying as an example of God's hatred for sin. Wouldn't Jesus have to actually be sinful? And then God punishing him or it would not be fair because remember he said it would be unfair for Jesus to die for us. Well, then if he's just dying as an example, wouldn't he have to be suffering for his actual sin according to Finny's logic, So that would call into question the sinlessness of Jesus, which then logically would then call into question the deity of Christ. So then Finney's perspective has greater problems than typically is discussed.

19:54 That's a serious false teaching to deny that jesus death was in our place. Compare this, for example, with Romans three through five, but especially Romans four or five. But to him that worketh not, okay, not to the person who does good works. But believeth on him that justifiethly on godly who's him? That justifieth the on godly Jesus. His faith is counted for righteousness, all right, because of your faith in Christ Jesus, righteousness.

20:39 Is credited to you. In other words, Jesus died in your place, and you could go all the way through. We won't take the time to go through it, but we could go Romans three, four and five, and we could see this argument verse Chapter four, Verse one. What shall we say, then, that Abraham our father is pertaining the flesh hath found. For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. For what's side the scriptures, Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the worrd, not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith hascounted his righteousness. If you would with me look over to chapter three briefly, we like to quote verse twenty three.

21:25 It's a very good, helpful, succinct verse to talk about sin. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Every one of us have sinned and come short of the glory of God. But you know, Romans doesn't end there. Thank God. Verse twenty four comes. Next, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation. Big word, but it means that which satisfies God's wrath penal substitution through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are passed through the forbearance of God. To declare, I say it this time his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of Him which believeth in Jesus.

22:05 In other words, jesus righteousness is credited. So God is an unjust by declaring us righteous when we're not righteous. How can God say we're righteous when we're not well Because Jesus died in our place. So God can in his legal courtroom say we're righteous and not be unjust, and at the same time. Justify those who believe in Jesus Christ. That's how God can both save the sinner and maintain his justice. In Finny's system, God's justice is not appeased. Third area of phinis theology was avarent because Phinny did not believe in any form of imputation, didn't believe righteousness was imputed or that our guilt was imputed to Jesus on the cross. He therefore rejected the idea of original sin and of a sin nature passed down from Adam.

22:48 Finny wrote moral depravity. Now he's gonna quote Finny, but Phinny's rejection of original sin that there is his Pelagianism right, full blown forget semi plagianism, full blown Pagianism, which then logically follows why all of his revival techniques are are fraudulent from the very start, because they're based off the concept that people are not depraved sinners, so that they basically have complete libertarian free will. Their will is not in any way impacted by a sinful nature. Therefore you can use manipulation and use these techniques to get people to supposedly have a conversion experience. That Finny's entire system is broken. We don't criticize his techniques because we just criticize techniques. It's because the techniques arise from a fraudulent, heretical theology put together by a person. And there's no other nice way to say this. Who wasn't a Christian. Charles Finny wasn't a Christian. Therefore everything that comes from him is fraudulent because it's all based off a heretical theology. And I don't know why so much of American Christianity was influenced by him. Again, I had I was told Finny, Finny, Finny Finny. So many times in my Christian life, especially in the independent Fundamental Baptist Church that I attended and was the first, the first schooling that I obtained in

24:21 their Bible institute. And it was Finny and revival and Finny and revival and Finny and Revival. Now they didn't bother to get to actually read a systematic theology. It's just Finny was almost this romanticized character of the past and a move of God and we need that. And you know, Finny was this great, you know man who brought great revival. And it's like, well, no, Finny was a heretic who wasn't even a Christian. But okay, right, so let's continue. Cannot consist in any attribute of nature or constitution, nor any labs or fallen state of nature. Mold depravity, as I use the term, does not consistent nor imply a sinful nature in the sense that the human soul is sinful in itself. It is not a constitutional sinfulness. He did not believe people had sined natures, if any, believed that the sinner's will was the determinate factor in salvation, and that it was not hindered by sinfulness. He taught that sinners are under the necessity of first changing their hearts or their choice of an end. In other words, you have to determine heaven or hell before they can put forth any volitions to secure any other than a selfish end. And this plainly, and this is plainly the everywhere assumed philosophy of the Bible that uniformly represents the unregenerate is totally depraved and calls upon them to repent, to make themselves a new heart. Who's giving them a new heart? Make themselves a new heart? How can you do that? See, if you're going to make yourself a

25:52 new heart, you can't be depraved. It wouldn't be possible for a depraved person to do this. It's not. We could argue, if you're not depraved, and why do you need a new heart? And again, the whole new heart concept we just already discussed leads to lots of confusion. When Christians try to articulate that whole thing, it gets all convoluted. Right, Well, you have a new heart. Okay, Well, if I have a new heart, I should be able to be sinless. Well, no, you have a new heart. But you have a sinful nature. So then heart and nature are different. So I have a new heart but an old nature? Or did I have an old heart? That the old heart is now a new heart, but the old nature is there. Remember I've told you to try to diagram. If you listen to Christians trying to diagram what we're actually made up of, it's like, well, we have two hearts and one heart, and now we got a new heart. The old heart's gone, but we had we have an old nature, but the heart is wait.

26:46 So we have a new heart, old nature. So which one is the most powerful? Well again, I can just ask a question, can you be sinless? No? Well, then obviously the old nature is more powerful than the new heart. So then what does the new heart do if the new heart cannot get me the sinless perfection? What just makes me better better in one way externally or does it make me better internally? Because if Christians are even remotely honest with themselves, they will realize that they are sinners, not only externally, but they are way sinners internally. In fact, I think Christianity is simply where we move from being sinners externally to where we become more we become greater sinners internally because we now repress the external actions so that we can appear godly. So Christianity becomes really convoluted when it gets into well you have a new heart, old heart, new nature, old nature.

27:36 What do you got? But then again, most Christians will teach the idea that now you can say yes to God and noticein well, then you can be sinless. No, no, no, you can't be sinless. What is keeping me from sinlessness? I got a new heart. You'll tell me. I have a new nature. You'll tell me practically, I'm a new creature. Old things that passed away, all things that become new. Well, if that's the case, then I should be sinless. Well know, because some of these passages that you're referencing is only referring to my positional standing before God. In Christ, I am a new creature. All takes a pass away, all things have become new, and my position because of imputed righteousness, not because my nature has been changed, because I still have a sinful nature.

28:19 All right, let's continue. God making a new heart, it's the person making themselves a new heart. Compare this with Romans chapter five, verses sixteen through nineteen. And not as it was by the one, by one that sinned, so is the gift. For the judgment was by the one to condemnation. But the free gift is of many offenses under justification. For if by one man's offense death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one. Jesus Christ. Therefore, is by the one offense, one judgment came upon all men to condemnation. Even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to justification. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

29:03 Romans five is clearly saying that we have imputed sin from Adam, and that we've received Adam's fallen nature. Again, this is a significant theological problem because of his emphasis on human good works, human will and salvation, and a human works and justification. Phinny's view of sanctification was also problematic. Finny believed in a perfectionist view of sanctification. He believed that believers would have a conformity to the law of God entire. Now, this is one case where at least I believe Phinny is being consistent. Right, if you logically start man does not have a fallen nature. Well like if you go back to Pelagius, pelagius is understanding was that man could be perfect even without redemption. You didn't even need salvation and you could be perfect. You could just choose to be perfect. So it made perfect sense that Phinny logically, when it comes to sa notification will say, you can be perfect well because you don't have a sinful nature, so even before salvation. So Finny is at least being logically consistent. Here where I think the logical inconsistency happens is where Christians run around saying, when you become a Christian, you become a new creature. Whole things are passed away, whole things have become new, and they mean that practically, and then.

30:20 They say, but, but, but but but you can't be perfect. Hey, you've got to do this and this and this and this and this to be saved. But I mean, you're never going to do it perfectly, but you do have to do this in order to be saved. Well a minute, I thought I was saved by an imputed righteousness. Well, yeah, if you have imputed righteousness, you will do this and this and this. Well, then how can an imputed righteousness leave me to do this and this and this? Because it is imputed, it just declares me to be righteous. It doesn't make me righteous. Well, but if you're truly saved, you will be righteous. No, if I'm truly saved, I've been declared righteous. That's imputed. And so many Christians are very inconsistent because they almost teach an infused righteousness, which is Roman Catholicism, and I almost teach that we can be perfect. But then they will backtrack and say, well, no, no, well you can't actually be all the way perfect. Well, what you said that I have now power and I have a new this, and I knew this, and I knew this. Why can't I be perfect? What's keeping me from being perfect? Well, your sinful nature is keeping you from being perfect. But I thought you said I'm no longer a slave to my sinful nature. If my sinful nature keeps me from being perfect, that would mean the sinful nature has the controlling power. So am I free?

31:28 Am I not free? Am I free? Positionally? And so when you get into some of these polological discussions, Christians will literally talk themselves into a circle and twist themselves in the knots, and it's just this convoluted, absolute mess. And we've done enough sermon reviews where you've heard that the preacher says this and then five seconds later contradicts what he just said, and you're like, so, which is it? Do I have power? Am I free? Or am I not free? Which is it? So? But at least us Finny is at least being somewhat consistent, at least in this point. He's a radical, but he's being consistent.

32:09 Now, this is not the same as the Wesleys. John Wesley taught a view of perfectionism. But John Wesley's view of perfectionism was that as a Christian you could learn to do everything out of love, and that occasionally you would still make mistakes, but those mistakes would even be done in love, and so therefore you were perfectly obeying God. Now I think John Wesley was wrong on that point. Okay, I don't think Christians ever reach a point in which they reach a level of perfectionism. But Wesley's view is a false view of sanctification. Wesley didn't have. A false view of these other doctrines that Finny has a false view of. Here and all these false views start to add up and they impact one another, they work with each other, so that he What he's basically saying is that a true Christian is going to entirely obey the law of God.

32:59 Hell, let me make it very very clear. This is why we did over one hundred hours of teaching on law and gospel. Okay, and this is why and we I just the other day I played a clip from American Family Radio where they're talking about the Ten Commandments. The idea in the minds of many Christians is that we can obey the law. Most Christians believe that when you become saved, you can obey the law. It's entirely wrong. You can never obey the law. You cannot the law, you can never obey it. The law will only demonstrate one thing, your inability, your inability, your guilt, your guilt, your guilt. It will condemn, condemned, condemn. You flee to Christ who kept the law for you. So Finny believing that you can keep the law. In some ways, this concept has infiltrated a good portion of Christianity. They may use different language, but the Wesleyan idea of entire sanctification fraudulent and wrong, and Finny's view of basically you can keep the law fraudulent and both of them are wrong.

34:02 We won't get into Wesley. But as far as Charles Finny is concerned, it was a heretic, it was not a Christian. I mean he look at these doctrines that he has denied. This is utter just a train wreck theologically, not just. Like John Wesley would have said, they won't intentionally sin, but what he's saying here is they won't sin at all, significant false teaching. Compare this with First John one. First John one, verse eight. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. That's pretty clear. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and decleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar and his word is not in us. What does John say about somebody who says that they don't sin, that they're calling God a liar?

35:03 All right. First, John's pretty clear on this. We need to be very careful about saying I don't sin anymore. John tells us be careful on this. We say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. Finney's errors are not minor issues. Each of them is a major heresy. Put together, they make Phinney's teachings the kind of dangerous false teaching that the Apostles warned against and Acts Chapter twenty, verse twenty nine, the apostle Paul warns the Ephesian elders. He says to them, Acts twenty twenty nine, says, for I know this that after my departure, shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And second Peter two to one is a warning against false teachers as well. There are others in the scriptures. But I'm just giving you a couple examples here second Peter two to one. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the lord that bought them.

36:04 I mean, that's what Finny did. He denied the atonement and bringing upon themselves swift destruction. They also were not mere theological ponderings. Okay, these errors weren't just theological ponderings. He fleshed them out in practice. Because of his beliefs about humanity, the atonement, and sanctification. He developed a system of revival that was very problematic. And that is such the key point. His techniques, his understanding of revival, all arise from his complete, total fraudulent theology. That's why any influence that the influence of Charles Finny in churches and evangelicalism fundamentalism is staggeringly confusing to me, because they have been influenced by a lost man. They've been influenced by a heretic. Now I know, the average person sitting in the pew, you become a Christian? Look when I became. I mean, look, I have somewhat, you know, a little bit of skin in this game because I became a Christian where at a revival service at a Southern Baptist church in the middle of nowhere, Texas. Right, it was a revival service, and I guess what they were.

37:18 Employing many of Finny's techniques. I had an emotional experience. Everything there falls right along a line with FINNI now praise God that God actually saved me in spite of those techniques. But those techniques are manipulative. Those techniques are destructive, and those techniques arise from a wrong theology. Praise God. God can save people in spite of where you hear the gospel and how you hear it and the manipulative techniques being used in the presenting of it. God can still save people. That's great, because salvation is a work of God.

38:02 But so I'm very much aware of revivals, Okay. And then I was taken around a large portion, not a large portion. I was taking around different parts of Texas as a teenager to tell my story during revival services. And what was I there for? What was I there for? I was there to get the emotions going because I could tell all of my horrible stories about how I was raised, and I could get people to cry. Right, And I mean, I've seen some really messed up things in these revival services and the techniques used. Right, I was told exactly when to cry. Cry at this point, you hit finish it with this, because that gets the biggest emotional impact. I remember sitting in services saying, hey, when it's time for the ultra call. You know, you and a couple of people come forward, because that will get people feeling like it's okay to come forward. I don't need to come for it doesn't matter. And so I've seen all of these manipulative techniques, but they flow that.

39:06 They finny developed them, and they were developed from a false doctrine, from a lost man, and then they influenced the church. Now the person sitting in the pew when you become a Christian, I see. And this is where I was going with all of this. When I became a Christian, and I became a Christian in this kind of revivalistic mindset, I didn't know any better. I thought, this is just Christianity, Like in my brain, well, this is how Christianity has always been. It's always been this way, right, this is the way Christianity is. You have revivals, you have altar calls, you do all of these things, you use these techniques. And well it took me a lot of study and a lot of phiological study and a lot of study of church history where I started going, wait a minute, wait a minute, Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, this is not the way it's always been. Wait a minute, wait, some of this is influenced by Pallagianism. When that's a complete heresy, semi police ism, a heresy, finny, a heretic. Right, So then you began to question the techniques. But the average person sitting in the pew, I can understand why they don't know.

40:11 They're just like, Oh, I become a Christian and this is the way we do church, and I just thought this is the way it's supposed to be. Well, no, it's coming from a very wrong influence. And it's sad that churches that this stuff has happened. He wrote about religion and revival. There is nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature. He's saying, there's nothing supernatural about religion. 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. In other words, if you use the right means the right way, there will be a revival, as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means. In other words, if you put a pot on a hot stone and put water in it, the water will boil. It's cause and effect, and that's what he's saying. There was cause and effect. Revival comes by cause and effect, and it's natural. It's not supernatural, as a crop is of the use of appropriate means. In other words, a revival is as naturally a result of the use of means, as a crop is of the use of appropriate means. In other words, plant the seeds, water the ground, et cetera.

41:24 And that's natural. Right. You don't need a miracle for that to take place. It's part of the Nate created order got made. That's what he's saying. Revival comes that same way. Plant the seeds, water them, and you will have a revival. Because he believed revival was not supernatural and from God, but a result of using specific means. He developed means to cause revival. Many of these means are with us today and we're introduced by Finny. Finny popularized the altar call and the hyper emotional appeals to conversion. Let me mention this, Okay, I don't think it's a sin to give an invitation as a Baptist. I think it's a real mistake to call anything an ultra call. There's no altar in this church. Jesus died on the cross once for all, we don't need an altar anymore, right, is that not true? When we do have something down here, it's a table for observing the Lord's supper. I don't know about you, but what I sit at at home and eat my suppers on I don't call an altar. Now what churches do have alters Roman.

42:21 That's a very good point. And I know many Baptists churches refer to an alterclo. Come down to the altar, the altar, the altar? Is it an altar? See philological word Within theology, words have significance and meaning, and sometimes churches are not very precise in their philological language. It's not an alter, especially in a Baptist church. We are remembering the death of Jesus Christ. We're not making it present again. It's not transubstantiation or consubstantiation. We're not Lutheran, we're not Roman. Catholic churches have altars because they believe that Jesus is literally present his body and blood in the elements on that altar. And it's a sacrifice. They call it the sacrifice of the mass, all right, So they have alters.

43:14 So in a Baptist Church. There's no altar to call anybody too. Now. Having said that, there have been good and godly people, and I have in my own lifetime given invitations calls for people to come forward and accept Christ. I'm not preaching against those as if they are somehow sinful, okay, But the altar call and the anxious bench in some of these things, as Finny applied them, were are very problematic because they come out of this theology, all right, the idea that you have to manipulate people into a decision, and that's what comes out of Finny's theology. In other words, I hope now you see what I'm making, the distinction between revival and revivalism. Jonathan Edwards was not into revivalism, but he saw a great revival from God and we thank God for it. Charles Finny was a revivalist. He had a set of means that he said, you follow my rules, you follow my pattern, and you will have a revival. It will happen because it naturalistically happens.

44:12 No, and if we're going to condemn Finny for the use of means to get results, remove revival from the scenario. Remove revival from the discussion. Churches have been using means to get results forever. Hey, we're gonna do this so that we'll get this. We're gonna do this, We're gonna we're gonna have this. We're gonna do this. We're gonna use this. We're gonna use this. We're gonna use this because then we will get more people. And we'll get By getting more people, then we have more money. And we've got to keep the people to keep the to keep the church operating. We get to keep the gears turning to keep this whole institution turning. We need people and we need money. We so how do we get the people?

44:54 Now? We may say we're evangelizing and we want people to come to God, but in many cases, people are a means to an end. You need people. You need their money so that you can keep the church operating. You can keep repairing the building and proving the building, building a new building. You can do this. You can do this, you can and then you can use that money to then market to then put advertisements, send out flyers. But you've got to have the people to have the money in order to do that, and then that brings in more people and it's just a never ending cycle. Now we would like to believe no no, no, no no no no no no no, it's all for God. It's all for God. But there's a there's very much a means that we are utilizing, and you have to ask yourself, at what point does it just becomes means for fleshly advancement.

45:43 I don't have an easy answer, right, I don't know exactly where that line is. But it's very difficult to sometimes have pure motives. And that's true for me as a podcaster, or someone has a pastor why why am I doing what am I doing? Am I doing it for the right reason? Or is it for the I mean, the motives are very that's why. Look, that's we have a sinful nature. All of our motives are almost always questionable. In other words, if you boil water, put water on hot on a hot flame, it will boil. And if you do Phinny's methods, you will have a revival. Now, the problem is that the the implications of phinis theology.

46:26 He I guess he didn't look far enough ahead, but almost all of his disciples ended up going into one form of false teaching or another worse. Phinni is actually in the line. This would be an interesting political study. But modern liberalism, progressivism politically in America comes out of not just Finny, but this whole progressive theological movement in America, the beachers and some of the other ministers at this time, some of whom were Unitarians. Now, if you don't know why that would happen, just remember Finni held to some very strong social ideas an abolitionist, wanted end slavery. His college was first to allow African Americans and women. There was a lot of things he saw in society that needed to be changed, and he wanted to fight against those social injustices, which was good.

47:23 I think Finny should be applauded for his fight against many of these injustices. That's a great thing. You're wanting an abolitionist wanting to abolish slavery, that's a good thing. How women were being treated and fighting, that's a good thing. He said, Well, how did it lead to a liberalism or a progressive form of Christianity, because and every other way he had rejected some of the key tenets of Christianity. So now you're fighting these social injustices. You may call it Christianity, but you're really going to fight it through you know, a social gospel in a sense politically, through through you know, forming organizations to fight against these social injustices more from a fleshly political point. And why because Finny had almost stripped Christianity of any real meaning. You're not saved by an imputed righteousness. He's rejected substitutionary atonement.

48:15 He's rejected penal substitution. He's rejected imputed righteousness, he's rejected propitiation, he's rejected Christianity. Well, the people who were influenced by Finny, as they move forward, where they're just going to move further and further away from Christianity because they didn't really ever get Christianity. But they're going to maintain that desire for social change and justice. They're just going to do so in a political way. Now they may be more liberal leaning, but they're going to do it in a political way. We see the same thing happening, and this is why I get so upset with conservative churches. Conservative churches have the good theology, they have Christianity, but what they have done is they set aside their theology and Christianity to embrace a conservative approach to fixing society. In either case, both sides abandon Christianity and pick up a political social desire to fix culture. But you do so politically, you do so through uh to through means outside of the Gospel. So yeah, you can see why his movement would become more political or would become more liberally politically.

49:27 And they're because they already had banned Christianity, so but they wanted to maintain some of those view so you can kind of see how that worked. So think about this, if this is and this is why he was so involved also in political activism on slavery and these kinds of things, because because these are everything's naturalistic, all right, now, all four being opposed to slavery. But the fact is what makes you see, and this is what some churches do even today, what makes a church decide that it's going to give up the mission of preaching the Gospel and instead combat some social ill because that's what a lot of churches in the nineteenth century did. They stopped preaching the Gospel instead became abolitionist churches. Well, I'm fine with somebody saying I don't believe the Bible teach us that we should enslave people. But I'm not fine with you saying so, therefore we should stop preaching the gospel and this should be our main cause. There was lots of slavery in the first century, and Paul didn't make that his main cause, all right. And then what happened when they got slavery outlawed, but became the next thing became the prohibition of alcohol. Okay, that was the next step. And so just those various kinds of things, and then what became the next thing, all right, And some of these things are not inherently bad ideas. The civil rights movement, all right, Today the gay rights movement and gay marriage is part of this.

50:52 It's just the same line of thinking. Okay, there's lots of churches involved in the gay rights movement and the gay marriage thing. It's not just like, oh, churches are like, oh that was nice that happened. There are churches advocating for it. And there's churches who make it their goal to fight against it. Not from a philological perspective, but from a political perspective. We've got to fix society, We've got to change. I'm just saying that this abandonment of the Gospel, either for a liberal political cause or a conservative political cause, is a cancer that impacts both liberal and conservative. What we have to do is get back to the Bible and theology and say, we preach against this as sin. We call people to faith in Christ. When they come and put their faith in Christ, then we teach them to obey after conversion. We say, now here is how you should live and how you shouldn't live. Now you're not going to be perfect or going to sin. Praise God for God's imputed righteousness. That's what your salvation is based off. But this is the path we should follow, not because of a political argument, not because we're trying to make society live as Christians, but because we call ourselves the followers of Christ. We should seek to follow Him and these moral areas, even though we may fail.

52:06 It's not an idea I'm going to go make those Hey, you lost people over there. We do not want you doing this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this because we say so, well, no, no, that's not. Christianity is not about forcing morality on lost people. Christianity is about presenting the gospel to lost people so that they will get saved and then adopt a different moral philosophy based off of being a follower of Christ, not because they have to because the Republican Party tells them so. So both the liberal and the conservative here is problematic. Well how did they get there? They got there because they made the gospel naturalistic and not about the salvation of souls but about the ramification changing of society, and Finny's in that line. Unfortunately, now having said this, there are some of you in here who've heard people positively refer to Charles Finny, and I think the reason that is is because people hear the story about the great amounts of people that turned to God, and some people may have genuinely been say probably were in his preaching. They were interpreting what he was saying through the lens of what they had heard growing up, and they got saved. And so we hear that, and we say, thank God, wouldn't we the Second Great Awakening?

53:14 Look at these revivals? Wasn't this a great thing? But the problem is, once you study Phine's theology, then you have to go, WHOA, Maybe that's not what we want to hold up Okay, we want to be cautious with this. The impact of revivalism. Charles Finni was initially very successful in seeing numbers of people respond to his preaching. Many even today hould him up as a model for evangelism. Because of his success, others have copied his methods. But here's the problem. One of the areas that he most commonly preached in New York became known as the burned over District. That when you started to apply Phiney's methods there, nothing happened. People were immune to the emotionalism, and so evangelists stopped going into that area because it was the burned over district that had been overdone by Finni and his followers. The best known evangelist to copy the methods of Finny was D. A.

54:03 Moody. Now, Dwight Moody, now let me be cautious here. I am not condemning Dwight Moody as having the same theology as Charles Finny. Moody, however, rejected Phinei's theology. Moody's theology, I should say Moody was. He was theologically orthodox. I've got a type there. Moody was theologically Orthodox. In other words, Moody was not a false teacher, Okay. He loved the Lord. He wanted to see people saying. However, he did. Adopt some of Phinney's methods, methods which grew out of a very bad theology. This same thing could be said about other evangelists that followed and copied Da Moody, such as Billy Sunday and Billy Graham. All right, Now, do not under do not misunderstand this as a wholesale rejection of these men.

54:44 In their ministries. But what I'm wanting to do is show you that these people actually borrowed ideas from somebody who had some really bad ideas and applied them. And that's how they've become. Some of these ideas that become every day for us. All Right, So I'm gonna say this. I thank God for the million of people who came to Christ through Da Moody. I thank the Lord for his godly life. Okay. I think it was a mistake for Moody to borrow some of Finney's methods, though, thank the Lord for people who came to the Lord through Billy Sunday's ministry. Okay. The probably the best known evangelist in the early twentieth century. Billy Graham probably the best known evangelist of the twentieth century. And you know, if you know this the facts about some of these kinds of things, you know they had an angle. So, for example, one of the things Billy Sunday would do is he'd preach the gospel and then they'd have a spot on the stage that they'd open a trap door and he could get down into it. Now, what did Billy Sunday do before he was a evangelist.

55:43 He was a baseball player. He held the record for stolen bases at one point in Major League Baseball, and so he was famous. It'd be like if today, oh, Derek Jeter were converted and became an evangelist, how many people would come to the meeting just to see Derek Jeter. Okay, let's a draw. And then what he'd do is he'd give the gospel and he'd say, anybody who wants to come and shake Billy Sunday's hand, come down here, and they'd come forward, he'd shake their hand, and then he'd have a counselor waiting and ready, and he'd hand them off to the council who would take them aside and give them the gospel. But they hadn't come because they said, I'm convicted, I need to be saved. They came to meet Billy Sunday. All right. To me, that's a suspicious method. I wouldn't do it that way. That's very finnyasque okay, way to do it?

56:30 All right, We will stop there. That is called revivalism and Charles Finny. Please go finish the rest of it. There's only about eleven minutes maybe of it left, so you can go finish the rest. Please go go finish the rest because I want them to get the downloads on the streams. Again. That's revivalism and Charles Finny from hang on, let me open up the sermon's two point oh app That is from Calvary Baptist Church, Revivalism and Charles Finny. It's a part of a series entitled Are Baptist heritorg I think that's the name of the series. But if you just type in revival LOSM and Charles Finny, you should be able to find it, right, you should be able to find it if I can speak correctly. All right, now, remember it is Friday, all right, Your challenge today, tomorrow and Sunday is you need that Sermons two point oh app. Download it from the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store and start looking for sermons on Charles Finny. I want you to find the pro Finny sermons. I want you to find those that are pro to pro our Team Finny, and those who are against Finny. I want you to hear all the different perspectives. I want you to have a better understanding of this very influential man who influenced Christianity for all the way up to the present time, and yet was not a Christian and was a heretic. And we need to see where that influence lies today. Now you can see how the influence spread. You have people like Moody, Billy Sunday, Billy Graham. These are household names. These are the names that are spoken of with great reverence and

58:02 respect in many circles. Yet they borrowed Finny's techniques. That's problematic, all right, So but I went so that's part of your challenge doing that. Now. The goal on Sunday is we will hear we will begin our going through all the their force in the Book of Romans. So we'll be working on that. I need to get back to Ephesian's four and I just have like one, two, three, four, five, six, what seven? Small little paragraphs maybe maybe just some of these, maybe just even be sentences on this article from the June seventh, twenty twenty four issue of the Printed Sermon in the June seventh, twenty twenty four edition of the sort of the Lord newspaper, because this is what started the whole discussion about revival and then inadvertently we ended up to Charles Finnie. So but yes, I will try to review at least one more message on Fenny. I just stayed with this one because this one is so good.

59:04 That information is so great, is this one? Is this one is? I would highly recommend this one again. Revivalism and Charles Fenny please download it please. They've only got eighty four downloads. Let's get that to over one hundred. Come on, please download it, stream it, okay? And then so that's what we will be doing, and that will Yeah, there's about a million other things we need to do, but we'll see. We'll see how many other things I can get done today I'd like to get I think I think I may try to turn around here really really quick and finish up this the Sword of the Lord paper. I mean, there's really it's gonna be a really not a good episode, so you probably just want to skip it. I know that's not really smart, but I'm just saying, there's not much here, but we do need to finish it, so we will do that, all right.

59:55 Thank you for listening. It's a Charles Fenny weekend, all right. So tell your kids, Hey, we're gonna you're gonna dress up like people who live during the time of Finny. We're gonna we're gonna try to pretend that we're at a Finny revival service. And this is what it looked like. I don't know, I don't know what you want to do. Just just learn about Finny this weekend, all right? And then Romans all the their fours right there we go. Oh, and I think there's hang on, if I look on the sermon's two point Oh app hang on if I look here the Puritan is it? Wait? Where is it the conference? Hang on? Let me look here.

1:00:37 There's a Puritan conference I think happening right now. Is it the PRTs conference? I don't know? Oh, look, well, just keep looking at the live webcast and I think so I thought I saw it. We will see, we will see, but we're gonna do it again. It's we've got the host Sermon's two point oh app challenge for you the rest of twenty twenty four, where you're supposed to be listening to a sermon every day on the Sermon's two point oh app, writing it down, and then writing a summary of what the sermon was about, and hopefully then by the end of the year you have in your notebook one sermon for every day of the year. And it doesn't matter how far behind you are. Let's finish the year out trying to make the most if we can of the Sermon's two point oh app. So yeah, we'll see. And I'm going to try my best to come up with new ways to promote and point to different things on the app. But we'll talk about that later, all right, for now, Finny, and then I'll try to be back here in just a few minutes to finish up this review of this sort of the Lord article on Revival. All right, thanks for listening, everyone, have a great day. God bless