The Pelagian Captivity of the Church

Trolls food, he was a well-known 19th-century preacher, but he had a distorted view of the gospel. The essence of the preaching and picturing of affinity was to call people to change their lives to amend their living to stop sinning and start obeying start being righteous because for Finney, the only way God will ever justify a person is if they are first sanctified, then he spoke to hundreds of thousands of people believed and taught was in conflict with some of the foundational tenets of the Christian faith and unfortunately we see the negative influence Finney's hand on the 21st century church today of Renewing Your Mind, we present the final messenger of Dr. nursing school series willing to believe a message that may ruffle some feathers from friends of Charles Finney when I wrote the book willing to believe volume on which these lectures on free will is based. I made the observation by way of speculation that I thought that if Luther were alive today and were observing the evangelical world of our culture that a book he might write instead of the one that was so controversial and inflammatory in his day, which he called the Babylonian captivity of the church is out of the book he would write today would be the Palladian captivity of the church and the reason I made that speculative comment was, as I look around I see an unprecedented degree of influence of Pelagianism rising up in every quarter in the evangelical world of our time and I frankly am very much concerned about how there are several factors that contributed to that renaissance of Palladian thinking that has invaded the church but I certainly would include among those contributing factors. The ministry the work and the theology of the 19th century minister by the name of Charles Finney Finney's systematic theology has been reissued in a 1994 addition and on the book cover of that he is heralded as quote America's greatest revivalist and many see Finney as the founder of modern mass evangelism. It is said of Charles Finney within his evangelistic ministry of the 19th century that he led over 500,000 people to Christ and his methodology of evangelism became the basic structure or format for mass evangelism in America ever since. He had a profound influence. For example, in Billy Sunday, who was popular earlier in the 20th century, and for later evangelists down to the present day and yet in his own day, he received some sharp theological criticism from some of the most learned theologians of that era, Dr. BB Warfield of Princeton once wrote of Finney quote God might be eliminated from his that is Finney's theology in tire without essentially changing its character as quite a criticism in our day, Dr. Robert Godfrey, a church historian has commented that there in his judgment has never been a theologian in the history of the Christian church more consistently. Palladian not semi-Palladian but Palladian as Finney himself. In fact, in some degrees can be said that Finney out Palladian's Pelagius and Ann were going to see at what point is not the reason again why Dr. Godfrey insists that students read Finney himself, and I would recommend you do the same thing that you pick up a systematic theology and search it out for yourself and don't take my word for what Finney says and teaches, or did teach is because Charles Finney is a bona fide evangelical hero. But the question I have is I read Finney's weather, Finney was even an evangelical historically when we think of what it means to be an evangelical.

We don't normally include Palladian's in that category, nor do we include people in the category of evangelicals who steadfastly and categorically deny the substitutionary satisfaction view of the atonement, but most significantly, the term evangelical historically has functioned as a description for those people within Protestantism, who embrace the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone. Evangelicals were first called evangelicals in the 16th century because the word is taken from the New Testament word for gospel and carried over into English the word for gospel is the evangelical and so an evangelical was someone who subscribed to the gospel as articulated by the Protestant reformers vis-�-vis the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Now if you would take the time to read the systematic theology of Charles Finney. You will see that he labors the point regarding his opposition to the doctrine of forensic justification and to the doctrine of Sola FITA review the bidding the doctrine of Sophie day or justification by faith alone, declares that when the center looks to Christ by faith puts his trust in Christ and in Christ alone that God legally declares that sinner just by virtue of the imputation or the transfer of the merit of Christ and the righteousness of Christ to the legal account of the center lacks merit, and who lacks any righteousness of his own now. According to Finney. Such a view of justification would be a travesty of divine justice and God indeed would never make a legal declaration calling somebody just who in fact, in and of himself was not just at that point he shares a common objection to forensic justification that was articulated by the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century.

So he says of justification of the center that sinners are not justified by God. Rather, they are pardoned they are not declared just in the doctrine of imputed righteousness, says Finney quote is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption. The merit of Christ is not and cannot be the basis of our salvation. So in no uncertain language. Charles Finney rejected the doctrine of imputation along with it.

The historic Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone. Let me review the bidding for a second if Sola FITA the doctrine of justification by faith alone is an essential article of historic evangelicalism and Charles Finney rejects it, and the question is obvious. How could he be considered an evangelical.

In fact, the question can go even deeper than that. If Sola FITA a accurately reflects the biblical gospel and Charles Finney vehemently rejects the biblical gospel. How can he be a Christian. I give you a Christian insofar as that he was strong admirer of the virtues of Jesus and as an attorney. As a trained lawyer using all of the powers of persuasion at his disposal he undertook to convert people to become followers of Jesus, but not in the biblical sense of being a follower of Jesus and yet he became extremely adept at evangelistic methodology and the powers of persuasion. I remember the first year I was a Christian and evangelist came to town and this evangelists said to me personally give me any person alone for 15 minutes and I will get you a decision for Christ, and I was a young Christian, but I was astonished by that claim that anybody could think that they could lead anybody to Christ in 15 minutes, but he was not kidding he was serious and he was convinced that all it would take to lead anybody to Christ is good sound persuasive argument and on the strength of that persuasive argument alone.

A person could be led to make a decision for Christ. This is called in its broadest sense, decisional evangelism, where the whole focal point of evangelism is to persuade somebody to exercise their will to make a decision to follow Christ.

Now, in and of itself. There's nothing wrong with trying to be as persuasive as we possibly can in calling people to embrace Christ. Certainly, the preaching of the New Testament called people to embrace Christ and to receive Christ and in that sense, they used every persuasive thing that they had at the same time telling us that the power for the efficacy of the gospel was not resting in the eloquence of men, or in the persuasiveness of our arguments that is vested in the person and work of the Holy Spirit who applies the gospel to the hearts of those who here but there are those who really believe that the Holy Spirit is not necessary if indeed a person does not have to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit in order to be converted now before I talk more about that, with respect to Finney.

Let's go to the next point, and that has to do with his view of the atonement. He categorically rejected the idea of substitutionary satisfaction view of the atonement and he did it on a legal basis. He said that there is no way that anybody could have extra merit that could legally be applied to somebody who lacks it so that if Christ had a perfect life. His perfection could only count for him and not for somebody else and by the same token he could not satisfy the justice of God by bearing our sins through the imputation of our guilt to him because of God were Jost and strictly applied the law of God. God could not accept the payment of one man's life for someone else's. And so he rejected out of hand. Both the substitutionary aspect of the atonement and the satisfaction dimension of the atonement both central doctrines of classic and historic Christianity and instead fell back on what is sometimes called the governmental theory of the atonement and other times called the moral influence view of the atonement. According to Finney, Christ is not satisfied the justice of God. But," he will talk about a certain kind of satisfaction of public justice that is by the cross and God's expression of judgment on Christ. This demonstrates or displays to the world that God takes sin seriously and that we ought to take sin seriously and that if we don't repent of our sins we will be exposed to the Jost wrath of God and God saves us by pardoning us, not by justifying us on the basis of somebody else's righteousness he pardons us.

Now the fact that he pardons us by his mercy could leave people to a cavalier view towards the law and towards righteousness and away from the need to repent and thinking that God doesn't take sin seriously and so in order to display to the world that God does take sin seriously. We have the cross but the cross is not redemptive in the sense that an atonement is been made for you or for me, but rather it displays to the world the seriousness of our call to righteousness and the seriousness of evil, and it is an illustration to be a check against an unbridled spirit of antinomianism and that's what he's talking about in the sense of satisfying public justice.

It places on guard against people thinking that because God is gracious and merciful.

We therefore have a license to sin.

And so the essence of the preaching and teaching of Finney was to call people to change their lives to amend their living to stop sinning and start obeying start being righteous because for Finney, the only way God will ever justify a person as if they are first sanctified, God will only declare person just when that person actually is just so for Finney justification is based upon sanctification resin classic Protestant theology.

Sanctification grows out of justification and does not depend upon our justification were justified by the virtue of Christ's righteousness and then how we are actually being conformed to the image of Christ describes the process of our site occasion.

Not so for Finney. You have to be converted by stopping your sin. Turning away from your sin coming to Jesus to be righteous and only when you are righteous will God declare your righteous all over against Edwards and against classical theology. The crux of Finney's theology is in his categorical rejection of original sin like Pelagius before him. He grants that people sin, but they don't sin because there's something inherently corrupt in their nature they sin as a matter of the exercise of their will. But man, in his natural state as he is born now has both the natural ability to be righteous and also the moral ability. Early on, Finney was impressed with the teachings of Jonathan Edwards but by the time he wrote a systematic theology. He was bending over backwards to critique the theology of Jonathan Edwards, particularly at the view of Edwards distinction between moral and natural ability. Edwards said we have the natural ability to make choices but we don't have the moral ability to do the things of God. Finney completely rejected that saying that man still has within his nature. Without the assistance of grace. The ability to live a life of perfect obedience and at that point, he is Palladian to the core.

He defines regeneration as a change that is brought about by the choice of a human being is a change of mind.

It's a change of behavior that takes place when a person is persuaded of the need to change and makes a decision to change. Let me read from Finney himself. Regarding his view of regeneration. He says that regeneration consists in a change in the attitude of the will or in its ultimate choice, intention or preference. Now he says this the change is both passive and active in what sense well explained.

He is passive in the perception of the truth presented by the Holy Spirit. I know that this perception is no part of regeneration, but it is simultaneous with regeneration.

It induces regeneration. It's the condition and occasion of regeneration. Therefore the subject of regeneration must be a passive recipient or person at the end of the truth presented by the Holy Spirit at the moment and during the active regeneration the Spirit acts upon them through her by the truth, and thus far. He is passive.

He closes with the truth, and thus parties acted neither God nor any other being can regenerate him if he will not turn if he will not change his choice.

It is impossible that he should be changed for regeneration is a change of choice here would he say that where we are passive is in our understanding as we are now learning what the Holy Spirit is teaching. That's why it's so important for the preacher to be persuasive and clear in his argument in order to change the person's thinking so that the person will now make the right choices, but there is no need of the Holy Spirit's invasion into the heart or into the soul to change the sinner's constituent nature in order for that person to repent. It's a matter of decision and decision alone by a will that is no longer or ever have been in bondage to sin. Finney's natural man is alive and well. He is infected by bad decisions, but he can recover through an act of his own moral decision. That view of conversion has become. According to the polls, the majority report in churches that claim to be evangelical and I think that here, as we said at the beginning. The problem that we face is the intrusion into the Christian community of a pagan view of man of pagan and humanistic view of the will that fundamentally denies the impact of the fall upon us and the bondage of the which the New Testament speaks a strong message from Dr. RC Sproul today.

I know that to Charles Finney's influence still reaches into many modern churches. It was Dr. Sproles hope that what we've heard this week on Renewing Your Mind will help us discern where error exists in our churches today in his series willing to believe RC helps to see the relationship between free will and the sovereignty of God would like for you to have this entire series. There are 12 lectures on three DVDs and when you contact us today with a donation of any amount we will be glad to send it your way to find us online@renewingyourmind.org or you can call us with your gift at 800-435-4343 today is the last day were making this offer available so you want to request the three DVDs that soon. Once you've done that will also add a digital copy of the study guide to your online learning library. So again request willing to believe by Dr. RC Sproul number again is 800-435-4343 in our online address is Renewing Your Mind.org Monday were going to continue our focus on the 19th century Dr. W.

Robert Godfrey as a new teaching series that looks at how reformed and Presbyterian Christians navigated theological controversies, cultural tensions and even a Civil War. I hope you'll join us for that beginning Monday. Thank you for being with us today and we close with a quorum. Dale thought from RC where come now to the end of our brief survey of history of the controversies that have arisen in the past regarding the extent and scope of human fallenness as a result of original sin of the reason why we paid attention to these things is that we might come to understand the graciousness of grace. The Scriptures tell us that where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. They also really tell us that where the spirit of the Lord isn't there is only bondage and we are told in the New Testament when the sun makes us free. We are free indeed.

He has released us from the bondage of sin and from moral captivity and we look at this, not simply to speculate on abstract matters of philosophy and theology, but that in our new liberty, we can assign the honor and the glory and the praise for that liberty to where it belongs to the grace of God and to the grace of God