Charles Finney: The Atonement

0:02 Looking at our world from a theological perspective. This is the Theology Central podcast making Theology Central. Good morning everyone. It is Thursday, August the twenty second, twenty twenty four. It is currently ten twenty three am Central Time, and I am coming to you live from the Theology Central studio located right here in Abilene, Texas. Now, the gold today was to turn on this microphone, go live and finish up our look at this article and the Sort of the Lord newspaper. Remember the June to seventh, twenty twenty four edition of the Sort of the Lord newspaper had an article entitled the Holy Spirit and Revival. And we have one small section to go, one small section.

0:55 I probably could knock it out in fifteen to twenty minutes, maybe twenty five minutes if we do just kind of a you know, if I add some thoughts or kind of summarize, you know, there's not much there. I could really finish it in a relatively short amount of time. But it's the final section. Now, the sermon itself, this this article, it's a printed sermon, has been somewhat frustrating, but it has given us the opportunity to discuss some very important points about the Book of Acts, how people, you know, twist and misuse and just kind of pick whatever they want from the Book of Acts without considering context. And we talked about that. We discussed just there. There are a lot of the concepts about revival. I really struggle with a lot of the way a lot of Christians talk about it. And while we were looking at this article and the sort of the Lord newspaper about revival, remember, I came across a message a broadcast on the Sermon's two point zero app entitled how the Heresy of Charles Finny shaped America? How the Heresy of Charles Finny shaped America?

2:03 And the broadcasters Reformation Baptist Church. I told everyone to go listen to the rest of it, How the heresy of Charles Finni shaped America, Reformation Baptist Church. And we did a little discussion about Charles Finnie, right, I went a little bit through his history. And the most important thing to understand is that how most Christians today talk about revival. How I can't say most how many Christians today talk about revival, It is more influenced by Charles Finny than it is scripture. Charles Finny has absolutely influenced the minds of many Christians from many different theilological backgrounds.

2:44 When they discuss revival, it's coming from Charles Finnie, and Charles Finny had very heretical teachings. Now, when we were reviewing this audio, do you remember how it started? Do you remember or how it started? You don't? Okay, well, I'm gonna play how this broadcast? Remember it was entitled how the Heresy of Charles Finnish shaped America by Reformation Baptist Church. You can find it on the sermon's two point oh app Please go listen to it, Please download it, please listen to all of it. All right, but do you remember how it started? It started in such a way that made me immediately go whoa wait, wait, wait, time out. Let's be careful here, Let's check a few things.

3:29 Do you remember? All right? Well, let me let me play it. Here is what they said. This is how they started their broadcast. Tolls finnya is in hell. So why do so many churches continue to use his techniques? Did you hear that? Do you mean to play that one more time? Let me play that one more time? You ready? Here we go? Tolls finnya is in Hell, So why do so many churches continue to use his techniques. They come in with both beryls blazing, Charles Finny is in Hell. They made an absolute, dogmatic assertion. I tried to be a little careful. I was like, well, we do know Charles Finny believed this. We do know he believed in the Trinity, he believed in the deity of Christ, he believed in in the necessity of Christ for atonement.

4:23 All right, So so I kind of tried to say, well, look, we can say his teachings were heretical. Absolutely, his teachings were wrong. Absolutely, his teaching has influenced a good portion of Christianity even today, and that influence is wrong. It's corrupt, and churches should reject everything from Charles Finny. I can agree with all of that. But I was a little hesitant about in Hell. I was really, I was. I was. I was very I was very concerned about going that far. But as always, whenever I hear something, even if I immediately reject it, you know, I'm going to continue to study it. You know I'm going to continue. I will even even though I may be at the outset one hundred percent disagree, and I may have to remember when I do reviews, I don't listen to things first, right, I'm reviewing and you know, reacting in real time. There.

5:21 I love that because it makes it very real, very organic. It's not overly produced. It's it's just a person listening to sermons talking to you about them. But I have to react. So sometimes I may react and kind of push back, and then I have to just rely on the spot my knowledge of whatever the subject is. They're talking about church history, theology, interpreting a text, So I mean, there's a lot going on in the middle of a live broadcast when we're doing one of these reviews. But please note, and hopefully if you've been listening to me for any length of time, you everyone should know this. I may argue against you, i may disagree with you, but I'm always going to go back and continue to study because I always take my past conclusions and throw them aside for a present study. Because if my past conclusions were wrong, well then I don't want to be wrong in the present. So I always challenged myself again.

6:17 So here I was kind of like, well, it's Charles Finny in Hell, So I kept reading and kept looking, and I saw something about Charles Finnie rejecting substitutionary atonement. Now I remember, it's been I don't even know how many years, maybe fifteen, twenty, maybe even twenty five years. It's been a long time because I kept hearing people talk about Finny, Finny Finny, and I did a lot of initial study at that time, and I came to a conclusion that Finny was a heretic. I mean, I definitely I may have even been more condemning than I am today, because I just always get nervous when we just say that person is in hell, because who are we to make that judgment? Now we can judge the teaching, we can critique the teaching, and obviously, if they reject the deity of Christ, reject the try you and God.

7:09 Where you're rejecting the true God, if you're rejecting salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, if you're we can I mean, there's some philological tests that we know we can look to. So I maybe in the past I came to the same conclusion, but I just I try to be very careful about claiming someone is in hell. I think we should always be careful but today I saw something about Charles Finni rejecting substitutionary atonement, and I'm like, well, wait a minute. So I've read some things so about his belief in atonement, and now I've read other things. So what is the possible truth about Finny on substitutionary atonement?

7:51 Because I think maybe we could get closer to well, what was the reality of Charles Finney's salvation? Can we even know? Well? So I did a little research, and here's what I have found. Now we need to continue to do research. Don't take this as you know, continue to do your own. But here is what I found. All right, here is what I found. Are you ready? Here we go? Here we go. First paragraph. Charles Finny rejected the traditional doctrine of substitutionary atonement, which is the belief that Jesus Christ died as a substitute for sinners, bearing the punishment that they deserved, thereby satisfying God's justice.

8:45 This doctrine is central to Orthodox Christian theology, particular and particularly and Reformed and Evangelical traditions. I would say it, Look, if you reject substitutionary atonement, I just that's not Christianity. You may want to claim Christianity, but that's not Christianity. If you reject substitutionary atonement, you no, you should not be considered a Christian. You're creating a new religion. I mean. Christianity is about the fact that God is holy, and that we are sinners, and that we cannot save ourselves. We are helpless, hopeless, there's nothing we can do. God sent his son, His son keeps the law on our behalf because we cannot keep it, saved or unsaved, and then he goes to the cross. Then my sins, my law breaking, my corruption is imputed or accredited, is placed upon Christ, and a sense it's imputed to him. God pours out his wrath on his son. Christ serves as a propitiation, satisfying that wrath. And then by my putting my faith in Him, my sins are paid for, My sins are forgiven. And then as my sin was imputed to Christ, his obedience and righteousness is imputed to me.

10:03 And then I stand perfect, righteous and holy. I stand as a new creature in Christ Jesus, not in practice. This is because I'm saved by an imputed righteousness, not an infused righteousness, but he is my substitution. He's my substitution. He provides atonement, He's he's the substitution, substitutionary atonement for sinners. That's like central to Christianity. If you don't have that, you don't have Christianity, you have something else. And according to this Finny rejected that traditional doctrine. Well, if he rejected that traditional doctrine, ladies and gentlemen, remember when I kind of give a pushback on that where it says Charles Finney is in hell. They may have been one hundred percent right. Let's read a little bit more about this.

10:51 Here's Finny's view of the atonement. According to one source, Charles Finny taught what is known as the moral government theory of atonement, the moral government theory of atonement. Now you may be asking what is the moral government theory. Finny subscribed to what is known as the moral government theory of the atonement. According to this view, the atonement was not about Christ's substitution, substituting himself for sinners and bearing the punishment. Instead, it was about God demonstrating his displeasure with sin and upholding the moral order of the universe.

11:37 The death of Christ served as a public demonstration or moral example deter sin and encourage righteousness, rather than a payment of debt ode to God. I want you to hear that again. Is this now? This is completely not orthodox, This is completely heretical. And this to me puts Finny outside of Christianity, meaning he wasn't a Christian. Therefore, I think it would be possibly fair to say, if Christianity is true, Charles Finny is in hell. And I think it also demonstrates every church utilizing the techniques and the philosophies and the ideas about revival that came from Charles FINNI you're using your ideas of revival that came from a lost person. And I was recommended Charles Finny and told about Finny countless times whenever they would talk about revivals.

12:39 All right, so let's let's read this again. I want to make sure you have this down today. I want you, I want you to I want you to do your own research on this. All right, here we go. Finny subscribed to what is known as the moral government theory of the Atonement. According to this view, the Atonement was not about Christ substituting himself for sinners and bearing their punishment. Instead, it was about God demonstrating his displeasure with sin and upholding the moral order of the universe the death of Christ. According to the moral government theory, the death of Christ served as a public demonstration or moral example to deter sin and encourage righteousness, rather than a payment of debt owed to God. Basically, Christ's death was simply a moral example.

13:25 He wasn't paying for sin. It was just a moral example, so it would deter you from sin and cause you to pursue righteousness. That is literally not Christianity. Finny argued that the idea of penal substitution, where Christ suffers the exact punishment that sinners deserved, was inconsistent with the nature of God's justice. He believed it portrayed God as unjust, because, in his view, it would be unjust for God to punish the innocent Christ instead of the guilty. Finny contended that God's justice couldnot require the punishment of sin. God could not require the punishment of sin if the sinner repents and reforms, So as long as the sinner repents and reforms doesn't need a payment, well, no, we need a payment, because even if I repent and even if I reform, Well, that's because see, then you could go to Finny rejecting original I guess we'll call it original sin or human depravity. He held to a Pallagian view.

14:35 So yeah, so he rejects human depravity, he rejects substitutionary atonement, he rejects penal substitution. Finny was not a Christian, he goes on to say. For Finny, the atonement was effective not because it satisfied God's wrath, but because it provided a moral influence on humanity. Christ's suffering and death served as an example that revealed the seriousness of sin and the links to which God would go to maintain moral order. It was meant to inspire people to repent and live righteously, rather than appeasing God's anger. See, Jesus didn't die to satisfy the wrath of God. He didn't propitiate the wrath of God. He didn't pay for anything. He simply died to be an example. So that will like, sin is really bad and we should be good. And Finney's view and Finney's view, the atonement made salvation possible, but did not guarantee it for anyone. He emphasized that individuals must repent, exercise faith, and lead a holy life in order to benefit from the Christ's atoning work. This contrast with the traditional view, where the atonatus sin is an accomplished fact that directly results in the salvation of those who have faith in Christ. Finney's rejection of substitutionary atonement was part of his broader departure from traditional reform theology. His views were influenced by his emphasis on human free will and moral responsibility. By reject acting substitutionary atonement, Finny placed a greater emphasis on human response and moral action for the

16:05 process of salvation. Finny's views were controversial and led to significant criticism for those who adhere to traditional doctrines. His approach to the atonement is considered unorthodox within most historical Christian traditions, particularly those that emphasize the necessity of christ substitutionary death for the forgiveness of sins. I'm going to paraphrase Charles Finnie was not a Christian. Charles Finni did not teach Christianity. He taught a counterfeit form of Christianity. His entire understanding of sin of salvation of the atonement, a penal substitution, substitutionary atonement. All of his views were wrong, all of his views were heretical, all of his views were corrupt, and therefore everything he promoted should at least, at the very least be questionable. I think we should just reject everything that came from Charles Finni. I don't know how his books are even sold in Christian bookstores, but they there were. His views on Revival were promoted over and over and over and over and over and over and over. So when you hear people talk about Revival, if what they're saying sounds more like Charles Finnie, then you know that their views on Revival was being influenced by a man who was a heretic, who is not a Christian, and who did not teach Christianity. And so I wanted to add to this discussion so that I could be one hundred percent fair, because when when they

17:38 said it, I was like, oh, now, to be fair, they didn't immediately go in because the way they should have came in is hey, that was that was a hot introduction, right, we came in with both barrels blazing. Let us begin by justifying our claim that Charles Finny is in hell. Here are the five reasons we believe he is in hell. And then they could immediately went after he rejected human depravity, he rejected substitutionary atonement, he rejected penal substitution, and so yes, penal substitution, substitutionary atonement, and he taught a moral government theory of atonement. They could, I mean, I could break it down for them. That would have made it a little bit easier, but they didn't necessarily go directly into that. They did go to some of his flawed teachings. But some of those teachings, I kept arguing, does that rise to the level of someone not being saved? Remember, someone can be saved and still be wrong phiologically on a lot of issues. Your theological correctness does not, you know, throw out your salvation, but you have to have a certain level of things right.

18:49 You're trusting in Christ, who died four year sins, Well, he's not trusting in Christ for his atonement. Christ's death is just an example. So he's not trusting in Christ for the forgiveness of sins. I mean, like there's and when you reject this, now he may try to then he may have tried to argue and use some different language, but at the very nature he's rejecting the truth of Christianity. So let's do this. I'm going to open up this. I'm going to open up the sermon's two point oh app. I'm going to open up the sermon's two point oh app.

19:29 I'm going to go to the discover tab. I'm going to put moral government theory. Uh huh, all right, we don't have okay, we don't have much moral government theory. That doesn't appear to be any messages on that. Okay, that's that's not good. How many messages are there on Charles Let's do this Charles Finny. All right, there are, Yeah, there are a number of sermons on Charles Finnie, a number of sermons. So here's what I would challenge you to do for are for the sermons two point oh app.

20:31 Sermon challenge it is. It is currently Thursday. I would like you to take Thursday, Friday, Saturday, maybe Sunday. Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and I want you to look up messages on Charles Finnie. I want you to look up messages on Charles Finny. We're gonna, we're gonna really add to this, We're gonna, we're gonna really double down on this. So you may find sermons that support Charles Finnie, you may find sermons that reject Charles Finnie. Hopefully you'll get a wide a lot of different perspective, but it'll be well worth your time, and it stays true to what we're trying to do in twenty twenty four is getting people to use the Sermon's two point oh app. So for those listening on other platforms, go to the Apple App Store the Google Play Store. Look for the app Sermons two point zero Sermons two point oh right, download the app. If you cannot find the app, you can contact me and I will help you find it. But find the Sermon's two point oh app. Go to the discover tab, hit the little search icon. Type in Charles FINNI boom, and I don't know exactly how many sermons are here, but there is a pages here of things underneath that, and and well just tell me what you find. Just just start listening, Just start listening, and let's make it Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday.

21:52 It's all about Charles Finnie. I think that'll be well worth your time because and because what I really want to do though, and just remember my purpose in this is the more we can see Charles Finny was a heretic, and the more we can reject him, then the more it should make us question. So what a lot of people do is just say, well, Charles Finny was bad and we move on. But what we have to do is go, Okay, Charles Finny was bad, he was a heretic, He's in hell. Now what we have to do is where is his influence still in the church. Even though we reject some of his philological understanding about penal substitution, substitutionary atonement, human depravity. We may reject his false teaching on that, but many people will still utilize his philosophies and methods and techniques when it comes to revival and evangelism. Now, I don't think you should be borrowing from any technique, any philosophy, anything that he would it would give us, since it's not coming from someone who's even saved. Your your evangelism, your your revival concepts should not be coming from a lost person. That that is that's the issue here. Yeah, I mean, it's easy to go, well, there was someone who lived in the past. He was very influential, but

23:22 he was a heretic. Great now we could ask why was he so well received? If he was so heretical, Why was he so well received? I think that's a very good question. But I'm more concerned with why did his influence impact all of these generations of Christians after and they brought that into their so called revival meetings and their and their evangelist evangelistic techniques. Why why was Charles Vnni so influential at his time and later on, even though it appears he was straight up a heretic. Now this means that in many cases, what really impacts Christians, what really he draws an audience, is not philological correctness.

24:13 All right, So there you go. That's what I want you to do this week. It's Thursday. Make it a. Charles Finny weekend. Kick your weekend off today. Tell your family, Hey, we're gonna have a Charles Finny weekend. And the kids will be like, yay, you see, you can dress up like people from that time and will reenact some scenes and okay, and your kids will be like, what is this? We're having a Charles Finny party. Okay, but no we do we I mean all Christians need to be aware of who he was. But most importantly, the voice of Charles Finny still speaks today, possibly inside your church, possibly and articles about revival. Possibly when you see churches scheduling a revival service. Hey, we're going to have a re fall revival, summer revival, winter revival. What is that? The voice is that the ghost of Charles Finney. All right, should be a fun weekend. Enjoy. Thanks for listening. I am and I am thankful. Let me let me make

25:45 it very clear. I mean, go back to this good I'm going to go back to my player here. I'm very grateful to Reformation Baptist Church for bringing this subject to life. Please again, go listen to their message. If you have not finished their message, how the heresy of Charles Finnish shaped America. Reformation Baptist Church. Please follow them, subscribe to them. I am very grateful for there. Remember even when I was first disagreeing with at least some of that, I was disagreeing with a little bit of it just because I wanted to be careful. Like Look, I don't apologize like I would rather turn on the microphone and go, hey, they ultimately were right and I was wrong. I got no problem doing that, but I would always just be I just want to be careful before I'm like, hey, that person's just not a Christian.

26:30 That person's just not a Christian. I wanted to be fair, but you know, they appear to be I think they appear to be right. There's no way you can say someone who rejects substitutionary atone at penal substitution human depravity. I mean at some point like that can't that can't be. That can't be Christianity anymore. That can't. I mean, you're not even believing in Jesus really to pay for your sins, because well, you don't need payment. You just have to repent and do better. Jesus just served as a moral example. And that's yeah. I think I think that that that crosses the line. And so I'm grateful for Reformation Baptist Church for bringing it up. Please follow them, listen to all their messages, and yeah, that's why we listen to messages because we can be challenged. See, that's why I love reviewing sermons. A lot of people think I review sermons just to be critical. I review sermons because that's how I learned, that's how I'm challenged. And even if I disagree again, I just want to end with this.

27:30 Even when I initially disagree, I never stopped thinking about it and learning and challenge and allowing myself to be challenged, because that's the only that's the only way we can grow, that's the only way we can we can we can change. So I'm grateful for that, and I'm grateful that I was able to find his rejection of substitution, substitutionary atonement, penal substitution. Now, if by any means we find out that that information is incorrect, I will correct it. I got no problem issuing corrections fifty times, because what we care about most is the pursuit of truth, and in this particular case, what we care about pursuing the truth of Charles Finny so that we then can find his influence and modern Christianity today, so that we can weed it out. Thanks for listening, everyone, Have a great day.

28:25 God bless