The Fallacies of Moral Government Theology - Part III

(modern Finneyism)
 

Charles G. Finney & Justification By Faith

by Leon Stump

As we noted in our last issue, Charles G. Finney has been highly esteemed and accredited with far reaching influence in the history of American evangelicalism. Calvinists (named after the sixteenth century reformer John Calvin) have always detested Finney, who was one of their foremost opponents in the nineteenth century. They still see him as the single greatest contributor to the corruption of evangelism. His noted "new measures" in his revivals, calling convicted sinners forward to occupy the front row of "anxious seats" in his meetings, initiated a process of change in the way sinners were dealt with culminating in today’s "invitation system" as exemplified in Billy Graham crusades. Calvinists see this as a cheapening of the offer of salvation (which it may very well be), a watering down of the demands of the gospel and an equating of the new birth by the Spirit of God with the merely physical act of going forward in a meeting. Millions are led to believe they are Christians by their coming forward or raising their hand instead of being truly repentant and believing and coming to a genuine experience of salvation. Of course Calvinists, always distinguished for their vitriolism against opponents, also despise Finney because he railed against their primary doctrines of the total depravity of man (including the inability of man to repent and respond to the gospel without divine assistance), the absolute predestination of every individual in eternity past to either election to salvation or reprobation to damnation, a limited atonement (Christ died only for the elect), irresistible grace, and perseverance (a true believer can never ultimately be lost). For over 200 years Calvinism ruled the day in Protestantism; however, few evangelicals today believe any of the distinctive Calvinistic doctrines listed above with the exception of a corrupted form of the "perseverance of the saints"-"once saved, always saved" is the standard dogma of most Baptists. Many of the five distinctives of the Calvinist system, I would say, should be rejected outright as false teachings. This is a hard sell, however, because great numbers of highly respected writers and theologians of the past were Calvinists. The doctrine that Christ died only for the elect and the doctrine of reprobation, that before He made the world God willed and chose the vast majority of mankind to be damned forever, are particularly repugnant.

Even though most of us today do not hold to Calvinism, we still cannot bring ourselves to say too much against it. John Calvin retains the respect of Calvinists and most non-Calvinists alike despite his errors. On the other hand, those who are found teaching false things today are usually condemned severely by those Calvinists and non-Calvinists who make it their ministry to correct error in the church. Despite all this unevenness today in dealing with false doctrine, we want to proceed in this particle article with the serious errors of Mr. Finney.

As we have said, Finney is routinely referred to and quoted favorably by preachers and writers today despite the fact that most of them have never carefully examined his theology. If they had, the situation might be different. In our last issue we looked at Finney’s views on original sin-the doctrine that all of mankind was involved in Adam’s sin and that sin was passed down from him to all his descendants so that all are born in sin. We noted that despite his vehement rejection of this doctrine, Finney actually submitted a very good theory of just how sin was passed from Adam to his descendants through natural generation. Most of those who follow Finney today, known as "Moral Government" advocates, seem to be unaware of his explanation of how physical depravity results in moral depravity in the human race. Instead, they simply and forcefully reject any idea of the traditional doctrine of original sin and hold that man is born morally neutral. Finney himself wrote, "Man’s nature is as well fitted to love and obey God as to hate and disobey Him" (Crystal Christianity, formerly Lectures to Professing Christians; Whitaker House: Springdale, PA; 1985, pp.215,216). Surely, instead, the Bible presents man at the very least as naturally more prone to evil than good. This denial of original sin leads to some even more serious doctrinal problems, including the way Finney and his followers view the new birth, justification, sanctification, and the atonement. Briefly, they view the new birth not in the traditional sense of a radical change of nature but simply the choice of the will, turning from selfishness to "disinterested benevolence"-the choosing of good for its own sake, not for any personal benefit that may be derived from it. They view justification also as involving no change in man’s moral nature. When they use the term "justification by faith," they mean the choice of the will to obey God (which is how they define faith) and live righteously (which is how they view justification). Sanctification for them also is not reckoning upon the death of Christ as their own death to sin and yielding themselves to the Holy Spirit so much as it is choosing to obey the moral law of God at every moment, saying "no" to sin. It follows that if man has no sin nature to overcome, then all that is left or is necessary is for him to make the decision to quit sinning and live a perfectly holy life from the moment of his "conversion," which is a mere act of the will (influenced by the Holy Spirit in some minor way). There is no need for a radical new birth in the traditional sense or sanctification by the impartation of a nature or power to live a holy life. By the same token, there was no need for an atonement in the traditional sense of Christ bearing our sins and paying the penalty of death for them to free us from them and our old nature. The atonement was "a demonstration of ‘public justice,’" a mere gesture on God’s part to show how seriously He takes sin and that forgiveness is not cheap. The effects of the atonement are either entirely or primarily subjective. There was no exchange of our sin for His righteousness or the actual removal of sin by His death on the cross or in our lives by faith. According to Finneyism, the atonement saves us by example. In the death of Christ, we see how much God loves us, we see how much sin cost God, and we are humbled and moved to repent and obey God’s moral law. Salvation in Finneyism is nothing more nor less than obedience to the moral law of God, of which every man is naturally capable because he is a completely free moral agent. In the process of our discussions, we shall see if my assessment of Finney and Finneyism regarding the new birth, justification, and the atonement is correct.

Finneyism, as I have characterized it briefly above, comports very well with the views of a fifth-century English monk named Pelagius. Pelagius’ only claim to fame was that he was the object of the rebukes and denunciation of Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, North Africa, who was probably the most influential theologian in church history. Finney’s followers today do not deny the charge of "Pelagianism" and offer no apologies for it. Most of them prefer to be called "semi-Pelagians" but in fact, the claim for the "semi-" is hard to justify. In days gone by the charge of "Pelagianism" was a serious one indeed, but in today’s theologically "dumbed-down" environment it is more likely to draw yawns than gasps. Most people have no idea what you are talking about, and if they do, they don’t care.

John Calvin’s doctrine was merely a revival of the theology of Augustine hammered out in his disputes with Pelagius in the fifth century. Both Luther and Calvin were heavily dependent on Augustine and freely acknowledged as much. Now, surely Augustine is not the sole measure of orthodoxy and sound doctrine as Calvinists would still have us believe. One may take issue with the "Calvinism" of Augustine (to put it anachronistically) and not be a heretic. But it is surely just as doubtful that one can be a Pelagian without being in error.

My main focus in our present article will be on Finney’s doctrine of justification, although this is inexorably intertwined, just as with original sin, with his views on the new birth and the atonement. Surely the doctrines of justification by faith, Christ’s atonement, and the new birth lie at the heart of the Christian system. This should be obvious to every believer, but as I have already noted, in our theologically emaciated "dumbed down" environment, I feel compelled sometimes to make a case for the obvious, and this in turn requires us to say something about the traditional doctrine of justification so that we have something to which to compare Finney’s view.

In his Systematic Theology, Finney devotes the first seven chapters to "the Moral Government of God" or God’s government of mankind on the grounds of His moral law. In the sixth chapter he writes:

The government of God accepts nothing as virtue but obedience to the law of God [italics in original]....Nothing can be virtue that is not just what the moral law demands. That is, nothing short of what it requires can be, in any proper sense, virtue. A common idea seems to be, that a kind of obedience is rendered to God by Christians which is true religion, and which, on Christ’s account, is accepted of God, which after all comes indefinitely short of full or entire obedience at any moment; that the gospel has somehow brought men, that is, Christians, into such relations, that God really accepts from them an imperfect obedience, something far below what his law requires; that Christians are accepted and justified while they render at best but a partial obedience, and while they sin more or less at every moment. Now this appears to me, to be as radical an error as can well be taught....Can God, in any sense, justify one who does not yield a present and full obedience to the moral law?...What good can result to God, or the sinner, or to the universe, by thus pardoning and justifying an unsanctified soul?...[F]ull present obedience [to the law] is a condition of justification....[T]his is what we hold....[C]an a man be justified while sin remains in him? Surely he cannot, either upon legal or gospel principles, unless the law be repealed....God cannot repeal the law. It is not founded in his arbitrary will. It is as unalterable and unrepealable as his own nature. God can never repeal or alter it....So then it is plain, that nothing is accepted as virtue under the government of God, but present full obedience to his law. (Finney’s Systematic Theology, Abridged and edited by J.H. Fairchild; Bethany House Publishers: Minneapolis,MN; 1976, pp.51,53,55,57-59)

By this we can see at the outset what I have said before that Finney’s theological views came directly out of his confrontation with the lifestyles and prevailing views he encountered in his evangelism, and that his whole concern is primarily pragmatic (practical). In other words, he has seen people who call themselves Christians who act anything but the part; that is, they are not holy. This failure, he reasons, must have its roots in their wrong beliefs or theology-in this case the traditional view of justification by faith. He therefore rejects their beliefs and theology and proceeds to craft another without regard for orthodoxy, tradition, or anything else, including, I’m afraid, Scripture, at least at first. His theology springs from a reaction to prevailing views and lifestyles which he rejects as false; then, proceeding on the basis of reason alone at first, he charts out his theology, then finally consults the Scriptures to see if it might be possible to reconcile Scripture with it. This is the great weakness of his system and theology. It does not start with nor is it primarily concerned with nor is it based upon a careful exegesis (study and interpretation) of Scripture, but it starts with a reaction to his environment, then proceeds with reason and only lastly consults Scripture. This is a recipe for disaster. The thing about it is, this is exactly how too many have done their theology. One "chooses a side," usually the opposite of that of his opponents, before he consults the rule of faith, the Bible. Then he goes to the Bible to solidify his already chosen position. The fallacy is that even though your opponents’ position may truly be error, so your opposite position may be. Both positions tend to overstate their respective cases without careful consideration for that which may be true amongst that which is false. This problem is compounded when, as is usually the case, the contention between the two becomes heated.

There is no doubt that Finney’s concerns about the status of Christianity in his day were legitimate. The quality of Christianity and Christians (if you could call them that) in his day as in our own was unacceptable and inadequate. The problem is not Finney’s recognition of the condition, but his assessment of the cause and his prescription for the cure. He blames, in effect, the standard Protestant doctrines of first, original sin, then justification by faith and the atonement, and rejects them. I am assuming, of course, that the standard Protestant doctrine of justification by faith is the Pauline, and therefore Biblical, doctrine of justification.
By "virtue" Finney means "moral excellence and righteousness" (according to the "glossary...of the terms used by Charles Finney" supplied by the editor, pp.427, 434). In other words he is saying, "The government of God accepts nothing as righteousness but obedience to the law of God."

But this brings him in direct conflict, not with simply the prevailing views of his own day but the Apostle Paul himself in Scripture:
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.... (Romans 3:20-22) What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. (Romans 4:3-5)

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works....Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them." But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’" (that is, to bring Christ down) "or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. (Romans 9:30-32;10:1-10)
"We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." (Galatians 2:15,16)

Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."...All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." (Galatians 3:6,10-12) What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ-the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. (Philippians 3:8,9)

The terms "justification," "righteousness," and "righteous" are all translations of the same Greek word. It is true that "righteous" and "righteousness" sometimes refer to right living or right behavior, even in the writings of Paul. But the sense in which Paul and other New Testament writers use these terms most is as declaring or making someone right with God. Justification is the declaring of the sinner right with God, to be in right standing with God, who has put his faith in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for his sins. Justification includes the forgiveness of all past sins. The believer, having all his sins thus remitted, stands before God as though he had never sinned. Some use a play on the word "justified" to demonstrate its meaning-"justified" means "just-if-I’d never sinned." It is as though one had been perfectly righteous all his life, thus he is accepted by God as righteous, and stands in the acceptance and favor of God as though he had never done anything wrong. God does this on the grounds of the sacrificial death of His Son alone. Having borne our sins and having become answerable for them Himself, He died to discharge the penalty of death for our sins so that God can forgive our sins without violating His justice. "Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent-the Lord detests them both" (Proverbs 17:15). Acquitting the guilty sinner who deserves condemnation would be abominable to God were it not for the sacrifice of Christ who was executed as our substitute: God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:25,26)

Justification is given by God on condition of faith, not works of any kind. Neither is faith meritorious or deserving of reward, but it is simply the means whereby that which God did in Christ in His atonement is made effective for the believing sinner, the means by which the free gift of righteousness provided in Christ’s death is received by the believer. Paul insists that righteousness does not come from the law, that it was given, not to justify, but instead to define sin and underscore and magnify human sinfulness. He insists that it is not possible that the law could bring righteousness. He insists that righteousness comes as a gift from God Himself, that it is imputed to the man, no matter how miserably he has failed to exhibit virtue according to the moral law, who has faith in Jesus and His atonement. God accepts as "virtuous" or righteous the man who puts his trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior. This is the classic Protestant doctrine of justification by faith.

But, you may ask, doesn’t Finney believe this? Isn’t it possible that by "The government of God accepts nothing as virtue but obedience to the law of God" he means nothing more than what Paul and other New Testament writers go on to affirm that the man who is justified by faith has both the obligation to live a holy life and the provision from God to do so, so that in the end he fulfills and upholds the righteousness of the law by faith?- For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law....Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:28,31) For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:3,4)

It would be well if this is all Finney meant by God "accepting nothing as virtue but obedience to the law of God," but I am afraid that the context of the chapters and the work in which his comments appear as well as the theology of those who follow him shows he does not. No, he means that God can justify us only if we live lives obedient to the law of God. What does he and his followers do, then, with the Scriptures that so plainly refute this? Why, they must redefine "righteousness," "law," "faith," and "works." One close admirer of his theology preached to us from Romans 10:10, "’For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation’ (KJV). The heart is the will. Faith is obedience. Righteousness is holy living. We are saved if we choose to obey God and live a holy life." In other words, according to him Paul was really saying, "With the will man obeys unto holiness and salvation." But of course this is far from what Paul meant, as the context makes clear. It is believing with the heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, not obedience to the moral law, that justifies (v. 9).

Finney himself is the source for this definition of the "heart" being the will:

It has been said that regeneration and a change of heart are identical. It is important to inquire into the scriptural use of the term heart. The term, like most others, is used in the Bible in various senses. The heart is often spoken of in the Bible, not only as possessing moral character, but as being the source of moral action, or as the fountain from which good and evil actions flow, and of course as constituting the fountain of holiness or sin, or, in other words still, as comprehending, strictly speaking, the whole of moral character...[quotes Matthew 15:18,19; and 12:34,35]. When the heart is thus represented as possessing moral character, and as the fountain of good and evil, it cannot mean,-...the substance of the soul or mind itself....it is not the sensibility or feeling faculty of the mind....The very idea of moral character implies, and suggests the idea of, a free action or intention. To deny this, were to deny a first truth. The term heart, when applied to the mind, is figurative, and means something in the mind that has some point of resemblance to the bodily organ of that name, and a consideration of the function of the bodily organ will suggest the true idea of the heart of the mind. The heart of the body propels the vital current, and sustains organic life....The mind as well as the body has a heart which, as we have seen, is represented as a fountain, or as an efficient propelling influence, out of which flows good or evil, according as the heart is good or evil....Our own consciousness, then, must inform us that the heart of the mind...can be nothing else than the supreme ultimate intention of the soul. (pp.221,222)

Note how Finney, instead of appealing directly to Scripture, appeals to philosophical argument or reason: "To deny this were to deny a first truth." Finney’s identification of the heart as the will is strengthened and refined in the writings of Gordon Olson, one of his foremost pupils and founder of the modern Finney movement known as "Moral Government" theology: [Man, being a moral being] must have certain attributes or abilities, as follows: (1) Intelligence, or mental comprehension and imagination. This ability is commonly referred to in the Bible under the term "spirit"....(2) Emotion, or an ability to experience reactions to what the intelligence is occupied with. This is commonly referred to in the Bible as an ability of "soul"....(3) Free will, or the ability of self-decision or self-causation, the seat or source of action. This ability is commonly referred to in the Bible under the term "heart"....This capacity to live and do things must be the very essence of the mystery of life, or the very center of personality....Perhaps the most profound term used in describing personality is the term "heart."...a very center of our personality which is the source and essence of life, just as the physical heart is the center and source of physical life....[F]ree will [is] the ability of self-decision or self-causation, the seat or source of action, commonly referred to in the Bible under the term "heart." Free will is the energy or motive source which directs life. Free will is the very center of our personality which is the source and essence of life, just as the physical heart is the center and source of physical life. ("The Moral Government of God," Gordon Olson; Men for Missions: Minneapolis, MN; 1966, pp.21,22,44)

It should be easy to see that both Finney’s and Olson’s conclusion that the heart is the will is arrived at more by reason, their psychology or anthropology, and their own presuppositions about what is central to man and salvation than a careful exegesis of Scripture. The heart is the will, they maintain, the will makes the choice to love God and obey Him, and this constitutes salvation and religion. Romans 10:10 according to Finney means, "With the will man makes it his ultimate intention to seek the highest good of God and the universe and obey his moral law and thus obtains salvation." An utter and complete distortion of Paul’s meaning. There is not a Jew or Papist on earth who would not applaud this definition of salvation.

Of faith, Finney says,

The term faith, like most other words, has diverse significations, and is manifestly used in the Bible sometimes to designate a state of the intellect, in which case it means an undoubting persuasion, a firm conviction, an unhesitating intellectual assent. This, however, is not its evangelical sense. Evangelical faith cannot be a phenomenon of the intellect, for the plain reason that, when used in an evangelical sense, it is always regarded as a virtue. But virtue cannot be predicated of intellectual states, because these are involuntary, or passive states of mind....[Quotes James 2:17-26, "faith without works is dead.] The distinction is here clearly marked, as it is elsewhere in the Bible, between intellectual and saving faith. One produces good works or a holy life; the other is unproductive. This shows that one is a phenomenon of the intellect merely, and does not of course control the conduct. The other must be phenomenon of the will, because it manifests itself in the outward life....Indeed the Bible, in a great variety of instances and ways, represents faith in God and in Christ as a cardinal form of virtue....Since the Bible uniformly represents saving or evangelical faith as a virtue, we know that it must be a phenomenon of the will....Present evangelical faith implies a state of present sinlessness. Observe, faith is the yielding and committal of the whole will, and of the whole being to Christ. This, and nothing short of this, is evangelical faith. But this comprehends and implies the whole of present, true obedience to Christ. This is the reason why faith is spoken of as the condition, and as it were, the only condition, of salvation. It really implies all virtue. Faith may be contemplated either as a distinct form of virtue, and as an attribute of love, or as comprehensive of all virtue....When contemplated in the wider sense of universal conformity of will to the will of God, it is then synonymous with entire present sanctification.... (pp.309,310,313)

Wow! Faith equals obedience which equals all virtue which equals entire sanctification. With mathematics like this, we might just as easily prove that something is nothing. In the first place, one might indeed argue that true faith, which James calls a living faith as opposed to a dead one, by definition in the Greek and Hebrew words as well as by its use in the Bible leads one to act in accordance with what one is persuaded and convinced is true. But this does not mean that faith is or equals obedience, only that they are related. Nor does it really prove anything about whether faith is intellectual or of the will. And faith is not a virtue, something meritorious that deserves reward, nor does it contain or imply all virtue as Finney goes on. Faith is faith, not everything else. It is the condition of justification not because it is meritorious or includes and implies entire obedience to the moral law but because, as Paul uses the term in connection with justification, it is the condition of acceptance of a free gift that is offered to us on the grounds of Christ’s atonement. Faith is simply the means by which we receive what God offers as a gift.


Finney writes in another place,
What is faith? It is that confidence in God which leads us to love and obey him. We are therefore justified by faith because [italics in original] we are sanctified by faith. (True and False Repentance, "Justification by Faith;" Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids,MI; 1966, p.67)

So, Finney thinks he does not contradict what Paul said about being justified by faith apart from the law because faith means entire obedience, and we are justified only if we are sanctified. Again, this would be perfectly acceptable to both Judaism and Roman Catholicism, and is about as far wide of what Paul taught about justification as you can get.

Finney also directly addresses the verses we cited from Paul on justification by faith, not law, and offers a reconciliation between his own views and Paul’s by a strict limitation on what Paul meant by "law:" Some suppose that justification by faith is without regard to good works or holiness. They have understood this from what Paul said when he insisted so vehemently on justification by faith. But it must be remembered that Paul was combating the error of the Jews, who expected to be justified by obeying the law. In opposition to this error, Paul insists that justification is by faith, without works of law. He does not mean that good works are unnecessary to justification. Works of law are not good works because they spring from legal considerations, hope, and fear and not from faith that works by love....Paul was speaking of works performed from legal motives....All that he denies is that works of law grounded on legal motives have anything to do with the matter of justification.... Gospel justification, or justification by faith, consists in pardon and acceptance by God. When we say that men are justified by faith and holiness, we do not mean that they are accepted on the ground of law. But they are treated as if they were righteous on account of their faith and works of faith....Not that faith is the foundation of justification, because the foundation is in Christ. But this is the manner in which sinners are pardoned, accepted, and justified. If they repent, believe, and become holy, their past sins will be forgiven for Jesus’ sake....When the apostle says, "By works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Galatians 2:16), he uses justification in a strictly legal sense. But when he speaks of justification by faith, he speaks not of legal justification but of a person being treated as if he were righteous. (Crystal Christianity, op.cit., pp.221-223)

Let’s walk through what Finney just said one step at a time. First, Paul was writing in opposition to Judaizers in his epistle to the Galatians, but not in his epistle to the Romans. In Romans, Paul coolly lays out the gospel he commonly preached; there was no direct, specific conflict with Judaism that occasioned his writing as was the case with the Galatians. He wrote the Roman church in lieu of a personal visit which he had planned many times, had been unable to fulfill, but which he hoped to fulfill shortly (1:9-13; 15:20-29). And in Romans Paul speaks of justification by faith without the law in exactly the same way as he does in Galatians. It is not just in opposition to error that Paul preached justification by faith. Secondly, Paul certainly does mean that good works are unnecessary to justification: To the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. (Romans 4:5) The Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it. (Romans 9:30) The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." (Galatians 3:12).

Nothing could be plainer. The clincher is Titus 3:5:
He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. (Titus 3:5).

He doesn’t say "works of the law" but "works of righteousness" ("righteous things we had done") in general, so these are synonymous. He does indeed mean good works by "works of law" when he says we are not justified by them. They are therefore unnecessary to justification. Third, Finney has no warrant whatsoever for his claim that "Paul was speaking of works performed from legal motives....All that he denies is that works of law grounded on legal motives have anything to do with the matter of justification." This is out of thin air; Paul makes no such distinction about motives. I must add that I detest this kind of screwing around with the Word of God when it doesn’t fit your preconceived ideas. Finney does this often, and he has taught those who follow him to do this well also. Regardless of one’s motives, works do not justify-that is what Paul plainly said and plainly meant. Fourth, Finney says, "Men are justified by faith and holiness." Absolutely not. "To the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Romans 4:5). What holiness do the wicked possess? "They are treated as if they were righteous on account of their faith and works of faith." Absolutely not. "He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy" (Titus 3:5). "If they repent, believe, and become holy, their past sins will be forgiven for Jesus’ sake." Nonsense, as the Scriptures we have already cited plainly show. Abraham was justified or declared righteous not after or because he had done works of faith and holiness but when and because he believed what God told him, that he would have a son in his old age and his subsequent descendants would eventually be as innumerable as the stars: Then the word of the Lord came to him: "This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir." He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars-if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be." Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness. (Genesis 15:4-6)

No works of faith or holiness here, yet he was justified. He was justified because he believed in the Lord, i.e., what He had just told him. What then of James’ teaching that Abraham was counted righteous because of his works, that is, offering Isaac as a sacrifice in obedience to God’s command? James doesn’t say that Abraham was justified only after he had obeyed, but that the declaring of Abraham righteous when he believed God was fulfilled. "His faith was made complete by what he did" (James 2:22). His faith was tested by God’s command and proved (the Greek word means both) to be genuine saving or justifying faith (Hebrews 11:17). It is only in this sense that Abraham was justified by what he did. And last, Finney has no warrant for asserting that Paul "uses justification in a strictly legal sense" in Galatians 2:16. He raises this distinction to attempt to sidestep the condemnation of his doctrine from what Paul said. Finney, it is quite obvious in this whole passage, flatly denies justification by faith. Is this not serious? I can’t think of anything more serious, seeing the absolutely crucial and central place that justification by faith holds in the gospel and Christianity. Its denial is tantamount to the destruction of the gospel. That is why Paul is so vehement in Galatians. Finney and those who follow him may be guilty of the verdict and anathema Paul issues there: I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (Galatians 1:6-9)

I of course can do no better, but let me add that you who preach this from Finney and believe it-your eternal salvation may be in jeopardy. It is possible, as John Wesley charitably suggested concerning William Law whom he admired and was a great influence upon him in his early years, that a person may have true faith in Jesus Christ and therefore be justified by faith while denying the doctrine of justification by faith as Law did. Later after Wesley had his new birth and justification experience on hearing Luther’s introduction to his commentary on Romans being read in a house meeting, he confronted Law as to why he hadn’t led him to Christ years before. Wesley concluded that Law himself needed to be led to Christ. At the very least you who follow Finney’s theology are in deep trouble.

As I have said, I came to find out gradually over a period of time exactly what Finney taught, several years in fact after I became associated with some "Moral Government" people. We had some relatively minor disagreements and I even had some of them preach on occasion in our church. I identified with them because they were strong on repentance and preaching against sin. But the time came when I read these and other passages in Finney’s Systematic Theology, and I began to see our relationship was in deep trouble. The breach grew and finally came to a head.

I had consented to let one of this group preach for us again. He came to the church on Saturday before he was to speak on Sunday. We stayed up until the wee hours of the morning discussing Finney’s views. Finally I read these very passages on justification from Finney’s Systematic Theology to him. He would not disavow them but rather defended them. I told him these (and other statements from Finney) were indefensible. To my great regret, since I had already agreed to have this young man preach for us, I told him I must go back on my invitation and forbid him to preach for us that morning (it was then 3 a.m.). There is no way in this world I could let somebody preach in my pulpit who did not firmly believe in justification by faith. My obligation to safeguard the truth of God and the people of God far outweighed my promise to let him preach, though it grieved me to go back on my word. I announced to the people the next morning that this man who had been scheduled to speak would not be speaking after all. He had left earlier in the morning before service.

Finney’s great mistake is to dismantle these great cornerstone doctrines of the faith because he wrongly sees in them the cause of the problem-the masses of people who profess to be, but do not live as, Christians. To Finney’s credit, in distinction to most people today, he rightly sees the place that works and holiness have in salvation. Most people today deny there is any place at all for these in salvation, that they have to do only with rewards. But this is certainly not the case as is evident from so many Scriptures, including the writings of Paul himself. But works and holiness have nothing to do with justification. Some try to make justification all of salvation, but it is not. It is pardon and acceptance with God, the forgiveness of sin, and the declaring of a man right with God through faith in Jesus, and the cleansing of his heart from sin, but this is not all there is to salvation. Salvation includes the new birth, sanctification, and glorification or final entrance into the kingdom of God. These certainly do require obedience and perseverance. Both classic Calvinists and Arminians have always insisted it to be so. But justification does not require obedience and perseverance. Ironically, Finney makes the same mistake his opponents do but in different way-they both make justification the whole of salvation instead of just a part, the initial part. His opponents made justification the whole of salvation by excluding sanctification; Finney makes justification the whole of salvation by including sanctification in justification.

The fault is not with the doctrine of justification by faith, but with a lack of understanding of the connection between justification and sanctification. Justification certainly is the grounds of sanctification. Finney denies this and says just the opposite, that sanctification is the grounds of justification. The truth is we are to live holy lives because we have been justified, not that we are justified because we live holy lives. And holiness is not optional. "Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord," (Hebrews 12:14). If Finney had simply held to justification by faith and insisted that all those who are or claim to be justified by faith also be sanctified by faith like the Apostle Paul and John Wesley did, he would have been all right. Instead, he launches out into areas that are way over his head and drowns (along with many others with him, I’m afraid). He and all those who follow him that I have ever known are far too inadequate in knowledge of theology, Christian history, and Bible languages to attempt to revamp the whole of Christian knowledge and doctrine as Finney attempted to do. I doubt if he even read Wesley. And those who follow Finney for the most part have very little if any theological training. Finney was their introduction to any serious attempt at theology. He got there first, they were impressed, and swallowed him whole. It is really sad. Finney does not deserve in the least the grandiose titles and acclaim as a theologian that he has received from those who are enamored with him. The things I have cited from his writings are not the work of either a brilliant man or a brilliant theologian. They are the fumbling and confused albeit puffed up ramblings of a mixed up man.

Now, having said all that, let me be fair with Finney and say that in some other places of his works, he writes very admirably and evangelically of our own insufficiency and of Christ’s complete sufficiency and our faith in Him for our sanctification. But what is this when you are as confused as he is on justification? Besides, as I have said, when a teaching is a mixture of truth and error, inevitably it is the error, not the truth, that gets passed on and becomes dominant in subsequent generations of those who follow it. It is Finney’s "moral government" Pelagianism that characterizes his followers today, which is why they call themselves "Moral Government."

Much more on the subject of justification and what Finney taught on it could be said but space will not permit us. We must remain clear and unmoved on justification by faith; it is such a precious, fundamental, and irreplaceable truth of God.
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. (Romans 5:1,2)

I hope you have put your whole trust with all your heart in Jesus Christ who died and rose again for you and are experiencing peace with God and that you are rejoicing in this state of favor with God in the hope of entering His glory. If not I hope you will repent of your sins and call on and receive Jesus as Saviour and Lord before it is too late.
God bless you all.

Leon Stump, Pastor of Victory Christian Center