Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Fake Baptisms to get the ball rolling!

[Justaned]

You are reading doctored Finney is a good guy stuff. Read http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm
or Wikipedia

His theology was so wacky it could only be Calvinist. Perhaps they are so wacky even the Calvinist didn't want him.
Either way he was the inventor of the Altar call and his theology was a total mess.

Ed

You do know that this is a Pro-Spurgeon (i.e. "Calvinist") web site that is offering this critique of Spurgeon's theology. Now, I don't begrudge you of accusing me of finding "doctored" Finney sites but you just went and found mea Calvinist "I hate Finney" site and then claimed that his theology was so whacky that it could only be "Calvinist". Yet, these are the Calvinists that are criticizing him Ed from which you derive the idea that his theology was whacky as Calvinists.

If a Calvinist doesn't want you, you should be honored

All fun aside he was a Presbyterian minister and Presbyterians are Calvinist. So either he was a Calvinist or he was not totally truthful or forthcoming in obtaining his credentials. Would you not agree?

[branham1965]

CHARLES FINNEY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MIGHTY REVIVALS HERE.A MAN NAMED FATHER NASH WAS HIS PRAYER WARRIOR AND GOD MOVED MIGHTILY.

EVAN ROBERTS AND OTHERS HAD MIGHTY REVIVALS OVER IN ENGLAND.OF COURSE CHARLES HADDON SPURGEON WAS PREACHING THE GOSPEL AT THE METROPOLITAN TABERNACLE IN LONDON.
HE WAS A BAPTIST.AND A CALVINIST.BUT HE WAS SPURGEON.

HE WAS LIKE THE ONE THEY ONCE CALLED THE GOLDEN TONGUE = SAINT JOHN CHRYSOSTOM THE GREATEST ORATOR SINCE THE APOSTLES....

Wait with that goofy of a theology he may have been a Word of Faither!

[macca]

Just wondering was Jesus and Paul Calvinist in their doctrine?

[branham1965]

i guess no one can do it better than old John Calvin and Johnny Macarthur your patron saints eh Ed?????????
+pieface +pieface +pieface

[branham1965]

ED
WHY DONT YOU COME OUT OF THE CLOSET AND ADMIT OPENLY THAT YOU ARE A DYED IN THE WOOL MACARTHUR-CALVINIST....THAT YOU OPENLY OPPOSE THE ALTAR CALL????YOU OPPOSE DIVINE HEALING...YOU OPPOSE DELIVERANCE FROM DEMON POWER...
AND YOU ARE A COMPLETE CESSATIONIST AS WELL.THERE ISNT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY PENTECOSTAL PREACHER THAT YOU LIKE.
COME CLEAN.
ADMIT IT....JOHN MACARTHUR IS YOUR PATRON SAINT. +pieface +pieface

ILL BET MY BILE DUCT THAT YOU SUPPORT HIS RADIO PROGRAM "GRACE TO YOU" FINANCIALLY....

Another take on Finney's theology:

Early Life
Born in Warren, Connecticut,[2] Finney was the youngest of fifteen children. The son of farmers, Finney never attended college, but his six-foot three-inch stature, piercing eyes, musical skill and leadership abilities gained him recognition in his community.[3] He studied as an apprentice to become a lawyer, but after a dramatic conversion experience and baptism into the Holy Spirit in Adams, New York, he gave up legal practice to preach the gospel.[4][5] At age 29 under George Washington Gale, Finney studied to become a licensed minister in the Presbyterian Church, though he had many misgivings about the fundamental doctrines taught in that denomination.[6]

Theology
Finney was a primary influence on the "revival" style of theology which emerged in the 19th century. Though coming from a Calvinistic background, Finney rejected tenets of "Old Divinity" Calvinism which he felt were unbiblical and counter to evangelism and Christian mission.

Finney's theology is difficult to classify, as can be observed in his masterwork, Religious Revivals. In this work, he emphasizes the involvement of a person's will in salvation.[10] Whether he believed the will was free to repent or not repent, or whether he viewed God as inclining the will irresistibly (as in Calvinist doctrine, where the will of an elect individual is changed by God so that they now desire to repent, thus repenting with their will and not against it, but not being free in whether they choose repentance since they must choose what their will is inclined towards), is not made clear. Finney, like most Protestants, affirmed salvation by grace through faith alone, not by works or by obedience.[11][12] Finney also affirmed that works were the evidence of faith. The presence of unrepentant sin thus evidenced that a person had not received salvation.[citation needed]

In his Systematic Theology, Finney remarks that "I have felt greater hesitancy in forming and expressing my views upon this Perseverance of the saints, than upon almost any other question in theology."[13] At the same time, he took the presence of unrepented sin in the life of a professing Christian as evidence that they must immediately repent or be lost.[citation needed] Finney draws support for this position from Peter's treatment of the baptized Simon (see Acts 8) and Paul's instruction of discipline to the Corinthian church (see 1 Corinthians 5). This type of teaching underscores the strong emphasis on personal holiness found in Finney's writings.

Finney's understanding of the atonement was that it satisfied "public justice" and that it opened up the way for God to pardon people of their sin. This was the so-called New Divinity which was popular at that time period. In this view, Christ's death satisfied public justice rather than retributive justice. As Finney put it, it was not a "commercial transaction." This view of the atonement is typically known as the governmental view or government view.

Princeton Theological Seminary Professor Albert Baldwin Dod reviewed Finney's 1835 book Lectures on Revivals of Religion[14] and rejected it as theologically unsound.[15] Dod was a defender of Old School Calvinist orthodoxy (see Princeton theologians) and was especially critical of Finney's view of the doctrine of total depravity.[16]

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-gr ... z2tzPlOyWM

You are reading doctored Finney is a good guy stuff. Read http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm
or Wikipedia

His theology was so wacky it could only be Calvinist. Perhaps they are so wacky even the Calvinist didn't want him.
Either way he was the inventor of the Altar call and his theology was a total mess.

[Justaned]

Just wondering was Jesus and Paul Calvinist in their doctrine?

If you ask a Calvinist the answer would be yes.
If you ask a non Calvinist the answer would be no.
If you ask the average guy on the street he would ask what is a Calvinist.
So it all depends on what color glasses you are wearing.

[Rocky]

Just wondering was Jesus and Paul Calvinist in their doctrine?

If you ask a Calvinist the answer would be yes.
If you ask a non Calvinist the answer would be no.
If you ask the average guy on the street he would ask what is a Calvinist.
So it all depends on what color glasses you are wearing.

Answered like a natural politician lol

[branham1965]

Chick Publications has a marvelous book that Jack Chick did from Charles Finney's Revival Lectures called the Last Call.

it sells for a few dollars on Amazon.

[branham1965]

im sorry Ed.

that was way out of line.

Another take on Finney's theology:

Early Life
Born in Warren, Connecticut,[2] Finney was the youngest of fifteen children. The son of farmers, Finney never attended college, but his six-foot three-inch stature, piercing eyes, musical skill and leadership abilities gained him recognition in his community.[3] He studied as an apprentice to become a lawyer, but after a dramatic conversion experience and baptism into the Holy Spirit in Adams, New York, he gave up legal practice to preach the gospel.[4][5] At age 29 under George Washington Gale, Finney studied to become a licensed minister in the Presbyterian Church, though he had many misgivings about the fundamental doctrines taught in that denomination.[6]

Theology
Finney was a primary influence on the "revival" style of theology which emerged in the 19th century. Though coming from a Calvinistic background, Finney rejected tenets of "Old Divinity" Calvinism which he felt were unbiblical and counter to evangelism and Christian mission.

Finney's theology is difficult to classify, as can be observed in his masterwork, Religious Revivals. In this work, he emphasizes the involvement of a person's will in salvation.[10] Whether he believed the will was free to repent or not repent, or whether he viewed God as inclining the will irresistibly (as in Calvinist doctrine, where the will of an elect individual is changed by God so that they now desire to repent, thus repenting with their will and not against it, but not being free in whether they choose repentance since they must choose what their will is inclined towards), is not made clear. Finney, like most Protestants, affirmed salvation by grace through faith alone, not by works or by obedience.[11][12] Finney also affirmed that works were the evidence of faith. The presence of unrepentant sin thus evidenced that a person had not received salvation.[citation needed]

In his Systematic Theology, Finney remarks that "I have felt greater hesitancy in forming and expressing my views upon this Perseverance of the saints, than upon almost any other question in theology."[13] At the same time, he took the presence of unrepented sin in the life of a professing Christian as evidence that they must immediately repent or be lost.[citation needed] Finney draws support for this position from Peter's treatment of the baptized Simon (see Acts 8) and Paul's instruction of discipline to the Corinthian church (see 1 Corinthians 5). This type of teaching underscores the strong emphasis on personal holiness found in Finney's writings.

Finney's understanding of the atonement was that it satisfied "public justice" and that it opened up the way for God to pardon people of their sin. This was the so-called New Divinity which was popular at that time period. In this view, Christ's death satisfied public justice rather than retributive justice. As Finney put it, it was not a "commercial transaction." This view of the atonement is typically known as the governmental view or government view.

Princeton Theological Seminary Professor Albert Baldwin Dod reviewed Finney's 1835 book Lectures on Revivals of Religion[14] and rejected it as theologically unsound.[15] Dod was a defender of Old School Calvinist orthodoxy (see Princeton theologians) and was especially critical of Finney's view of the doctrine of total depravity.[16]

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-gr ... z2tzPlOyWM

You are reading doctored Finney is a good guy stuff. Read http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm
or Wikipedia

His theology was so wacky it could only be Calvinist. Perhaps they are so wacky even the Calvinist didn't want him.
Either way he was the inventor of the Altar call and his theology was a total mess.

[Justaned]

Just wondering was Jesus and Paul Calvinist in their doctrine?

If you ask a Calvinist the answer would be yes.
If you ask a non Calvinist the answer would be no.
If you ask the average guy on the street he would ask what is a Calvinist.
So it all depends on what color glasses you are wearing.

Answered like a natural politician lol

Has nothing to go with politics and everything with truth.

A Calvinist sees Jesus as holding to Calvinism.
A Non Calvanist sees Jesus not holding to Calvinism.
A most people on the street don't know the difference.

The point most seems to be missing is Calvinist are sincere and faithful people whether you want to believe it or not. They sincerely believe their position is clearly seen in scripture and they can't understand why others do not see it also.

Non Calvinist are also sincere and faithful people whether you want to believe it or not. They sincerely believe their position is clearly seen in scripture and they can't understand why others do not see it also.

That is the rub two equally sincere, equally faithful and equally seeking truth groups of people think they see two distinctly different positions in scripture. While in fact in many cases what they think about the other is not fact but their opinion of the others position. Usually formed by talking to people that either take a hyper view of their position or haven't really learned the true doctrine of their theology for themselves.