The Fallacies of Moral Government Theology- Part V

(modern Finneyism)
 

Charles G. Finney & Regeneration - Part B

by Leon Stump

This is the seventh in our series on the theology of Charles G. Finney, the nineteenth-century evangelist whose teaching and influence remains with us to the present day. We are looking at the aspects of his theology which are most distinctive to him and subjects that are most essential to the Christian faith-original sin, the atonement, justification by faith, and, in our "September-November, 2000," issue, regeneration. In this article we continue with what he taught on regeneration or the new birth:

V. What regeneration is .... Regeneration is represented in the Bible as constituting a radical change of character, as the resurrection from a death in sin, as the beginning of a new and spiritual life, as constituting a new creature, as a new creation, not a physical, but a moral or spiritual creation, as conversion, or turning to God, as giving God the heart, as loving God with all our heart, and our neighbor as ourselves. (Finney's Systematic Theology, Bethany House Publishers: Minneapolis, MN; 1976, p.223) Bethany House Publishers: Minneapolis, MN; 197(), p.223) Let's stop right here a moment before we get far. Look at Finney's list of things that regeneration is. I mean he goes on with such diverse things that he may as well have added that regeneration is paying your tithes and obeying earthly governments! Surely regeneration, is, as we have noted, by very definition, not a process or lifestyle or an act on the part of the subject, but an event. He continues:

Now we have seen abundantly, that moral character belongs to, or is an attribute of, the ultimate choice or intention of the soul. Regeneration then is a radical change of the ultimate intention, and, of course, of the end or object of life. (p.223)

Stop again. No doubt regeneration effects a "radical change in our ultimate intention" to no longer live for ourselves and sin but for God. But it is not at all correct to say that this is regeneration; in fact, it is nothing more than repentance. Since this was available all along under the oId Covenant, why did we need a New?

We have seen, that the choice of an end is efficient in producing executive volitions, or the use of means to obtain its end. A selfish ultimate choice is, therefore, a wicked heart, out of which flows every evil; and a benevolent ultimate choice is a good heart, out of which flows every good and commendable deed. (p.223)

Again, as I have noted in earlier articles, I fail to perceive how a choice is a heart. But for Finney, not only is regeneration a mere change of the will, the heart itself is but the will. He uses "heart" and "will" interchangeably in a number of passages in his writings:

... the will, or heart, may be right while the affections or emotions are wrong. ("Letters on Sanctification" from Principles of Discipleship, L.G. Parkhurst, Jr., ed.; Bethany House Publishers: Minneapolis, MN; 1988, p.201) Regeneration, or a change of heart, is a change in the ultimate intention, ... a turning from disobedience to obedience .... (lbid.,p.213)

... with their selfish hearts, or in the selfish attitude of their wills, .... (Finney's Systematic Theology, p. 296).

We proceed:

Regeneration, to have the characteristics ascribed to it in the Bible, must consist in a change of the attitude of the will, or a change in the ultimate choice, intention, or preference; a change from selfishness to benevolence; from choosing self-gratification as the supreme and ultimate end of life, to the supreme and ultimate choice of the highest well-being of God and of the universe; from a state of entire consecration to self-interest, self-indulgence, self gratification for its own sake or as an end, and as the supreme end of life, to a state of entire consecration to God, and to the interests of his kingdom as the supreme and ultimate end of life .... VII. Agencies employed -in regeneration. 1. The scriptures often ascribe regeneration to the Spirit of God. " ... That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."-John iii.5,6. (p.223) "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."-John i.15.[sic] 2. We have seen that the subject is active in regeneration, that regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness to love or benevolence; or, in other words, in turning from the supreme choice of self gratification, to the supreme love of God and the equal love of his neighbor. Of course the subject of regeneration must be an agent in the work. (p.224)

It's really a phenomenon to behold to see how Finney can quote John 1:14 ("John i.15" is either a misprint or error on his part) and not see that it runs entirely against the grain of his whole argument on regeneration. Those who receive Christ (v.13), John says, " ... are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." This emphatically states that regeneration is no act of the human will or "changing of the ultimate intention of the will" as Finney asserts, but an act of God alone.

That the new birth is the act of God is clearly shown in the New Testament by the fact that the phrase "born of God" (or "born of the Spirit," which is the same thing) appears no less than thirteen times: John 1:13; 3:5,6,8; Galatians 4:29; 1 John 2:29; 3:6,8,9(2x); 4:7; 5:1,4,18(2x). Besides these, three more verses attribute regeneration to God-Titus 3:5; James 1:18; and 1 Peter 1:3-making fifteen in all. That God is the agent of regeneration obviously dominates New Testament thought on the subject. Finney is not honest with this fact. Further, to say that God is the agent of regeneration is not strong enough. It is not that He is the One who merely precipitates or facilitates the new birth, He is the Source of it. God Fathers us in regeneration. The believer becomes an actual child of God, not in some merely figurative sense, nor even by adoption alone (the legal process behind his becoming a child of God), but by an actual rebirth of his inner being. This is the meaning of Jesus' words in John 3:8, " ... that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (KJV), or " ... the Spirit gives birth to spirit" (NIV). The phrase "born again" in John 3:3,7 could with equal authority be translated, "born from above." The new birth is not merely a change which is led, orchestrated, or induced by God as Finney maintains. It is a birth from God, from above. God begets sons, His own offspring, so that the product is His own creative handiwork in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:8-10).

Finney goes on:

3. There are generally other agents, one or more human beings concerned in persuading the sinner to turn .... Thus Paul says, "I have begotten you through the gospel." ... Again: an apostle says, "Ye have purified your souls by obeying the truth." Here the work is ascribed to the subject .... (p.224)

What work is ascribed to the subject? No one denies that turning from sin, believing the gospel, and subsequent obedience to the Lord in following Him is the work of the subject, but this is not the same thing as the specific act of regeneration which is the prerogative of God alone. Finney is alluding here to 1 Peter 1:22, which, along with the two surrounding verses actually reads,

21. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God. 22. Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart. 23. For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. (l Peter 1:21-23)

Of course, I can see how he and others would take verse 22 to mean regeneration, but actually it refers instead to what is commonly called conversion-repentance and faith followed by obedience to God-which, as I said, no one disputes is the work of the subject. It is verse 23 which refers to the specific act of regeneration by means of the word of God, not verse 22. In addition here notice here the use of the term "heart." Does it make any sense at all to follow Finney's definition of heart here as "will" or ultimate intention? I think not. According to his definition, there would be no need to love each other from a pure heart since the heart, which is for him the will, would have already made the choice to live in disinterested benevolence or love. "Love one another deeply, from the will"? I don't think so. Rather he means "Love one another deeply and truly, from the depths of your being with all your affection."

We continue:

Several theologians have held that regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit alone. In proof of this they cite those passages that ascribe it to God. But I might just as lawfully insist that it is the work of man alone, and quote those passages that ascribe it to man, to substantiate my position. Or I might assert that it is alone the work of the subject. Or again, I might assert that it is effected by the truth alone, and quote such passages as the following to substantiate my position: "Of his own will begat He us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures."-James L18. "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever."-l Peter i.23. It has been common to regard the third person as a mere instrument in the work. But the fact is, he is a willing, designing, responsible agent, as really so as God or the subject is. (p.224)

But how or by what rule of logic does being "a willing designing responsible agent" exclude Paul from being a mere instrument in a work which is in reality carried on by the power and influence of Another? Besides, his texts offer no other agent but God regenerating by His Word. Notice again that the first text, James 1: 18, stands in sharp contrast to his theory that regeneration is the act of man's will-"Of his own will begat he us .... " We have already dealt with his evidence for the contention that regeneration is ascribed to more than one agent.

We continue:

If it be inquired how the Bible can consistently ascribe regeneration at one time to God, at another to the subject, at another to the truth, at another to a third person; the answer is to be sought in the nature of the work. The work accomplished is a change of choice, in respect to an end or the end of life. The sinner whose choice is changed, must of course act. The end to be chosen must be clearly and -5-forcibly presented; this is the work of the third person, and of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit takes the things of Christ and shows them to the soul. The truth is employed, or it is truth which must necessarily be employed, as an instrument to induce a change of choice. The truth is employed, or it is truth which must necessarily be employed, as an instrument to induce a change of choice. (p.224)

VIII. Instrumentalities employed in the work. 1. Truth. This must, from the nature of regeneration, be employed in effecting it, for regeneration is nothing else than the will being duly influenced by truth .... (p.225)

Well, here we finally have it in a single statement" ... regeneration is nothing else than the will being duly influenced by truth." But this falls far short of the Biblical account of it and the terms themselves that are used for it. This is where Finney wanted to get to all along. His discussion of there being more than one agent in regeneration was just a lot of smoke, paying some ceremonial dues to the dominant Scriptural concept that it is God who effects regeneration, so he could maneuver the discussion around to his real position which is at last flatly stated in a single sentence. He continues:

Those who hold to physical or constitutional moral depravity must hold, of course, to constitutional regeneration; and, of course, consistency compels them to maintain that there is but one agent employed in regeneration, and that is the Holy Spirit, and that no instrument whatever can be employed, any more than in the creation of the world. These theologians have affirmed, over and over again, that regeneration is a miracle; that there is no tendency whatever in the gospel, however presented, and whether presented by God or man, to regenerate the heart .... (p.225)

Some Calvinists may have maintained "that there is no tendency whatever in the gospel... to regenerate the heart," but what is that to me? Regeneration is indeed a miracle, that is, in the sense that it is a direct act of God. Paul could liken it to His original act of creation, "Let there be light!", which was certainly a first class miracle if there ever was one. But considering his views on regeneration, I seriously doubt that Finney would have made such a comparison, don't you?-

For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:6)

There is no inherent inconsistency, as Finney assumes, between holding that regeneration is a miracle (at least according to the general or popular use of the word), and yet acknowledging that it is also brought about by the instrumentality of the Word of truth or the gospel. In fact, Paul's comparison of regeneration with God's original act of creation holds up very well here. God created the universe by His spoken Word, "Let there be light." The "light" or "let there be light" in the case of regeneration is the "light of the gospel" (v. 4). Whatever the error of Calvinism may be on this point doesn't touch or negate the true view of regeneration as a creative act of God in the soul or spirit. Notice also that Paul says the light of the gospel, the light of the knowledge of the glory of God shines in our hearts, Certainly he is not speaking of the heart as the will, but in the common view of it as a place, a receptacle, the inward interior life of a man. And he says this about regeneration which is surely the subject of this passage. All of this is quite contrary to Finney's contention that regeneration is merely the changing of the ultimate intention of the will.

Finney continues:

What must be the effect of inculcating the dogma, that the gospel has nothing to do with regenerating the sinner? Instead of telling him that regeneration is nothing else than his embracing the gospel, to tell him that he must wait, and first have his constitution recreated before he can possibly (p.225) do anything but oppose God!. .. While the sinner believes this, it is impossible, if he has it in mind, that he should be regenerated. He stands and waits for God to do what God requires him to do, and which no one can do for him. 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 it should be changed .... (p.226)

I can say "Amen" to all this without giving up "constitutional regeneration," that it is a change in the constitution of the heart or soul, at all. Finney's objections above have to do with the Calvinistic presupposition about the order of things, that regeneration must precede conversion, not the nature of regeneration itself.

Finally, let's look at a summary of the theories of regeneration offered by Finney:

XI. Philosophical theories of regeneration .... 1. The taste scheme .... Moral depravity, (p.227) according to this school, consists in a constitutional relish, taste, or craving for sin. They hold the doctrine of original sin-of a sinful nature or constitution .... The heart of the mind, in the estimation of this school, is not identical with choice or intention. They hold that it does not consist in any voluntary state of mind, but that it lies back of, and controls voluntary action, or the actions of the will ... .It is a change wrought by the direct and physical power of the Holy Spirit in the constitution of the soul, changing its susceptibilities, implanting or creating a new taste, relish, appetite, craving for, or love of, holiness. It is, as they express it, the implantation of a new principle of holiness .... This scheme, of course, holds and teaches that, in regeneration, the subject is entirely passive .... They hold that there are of course no means of regeneration, as it is a direct act of creation .... (p.238)

That the new birth is actually that, "the implantation of a new principle of holiness," is at the very least implied in I John 2:29, "If you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of him." And as we have noted, one may hold to a direct change of constitution by the Holy Spirit and the implantation of a new principle of holiness without subscribing to the Calvinistic order of regeneration first, then conversion. The subject is passive in the act of regeneration itself, which is an act of God alone, but he is active in the overall process of conversion of which regeneration is only a specific part. And, as we have said, there is no inherent necessity for rejecting the intermediate instrumentality of the Word sown through a human vessel as the means of regeneration. God is the only true Agent, acting by His Word and Spirit through intermediaries. Just about everything He does comes about in the same way. Finney continues:

Upon this scheme or theory of regeneration, I remark -- (1.) ... [M]oral depravity is altogether voluntary .... (2.) [T]here is no constitutional relish, taste, or craving for sin (4.) It throws the blame of unregeneracy upon God... [I]f it consists in what this philosophy teaches, ... God alone is responsible for the fact, that any sinner is unregenerate. (p.229)

I reject the conclusion. God is not solely responsible for the fact that any sinner is unregenerate if you acknowledge that man is active in the overall process of conversion which includes as its principle or climactic part regeneration by the direct action of God's Spirit.

(5.) It renders holiness after regeneration physically necessary, just as sin was before, and perseverance also as physically necessary, and falling from grace as a natural impossibility. (p.229)

No, the impartation of a new principle of holiness does not render holiness an automatic necessity. The believer obviously is not deprived of his will after regeneration. The implantation of a higher principle is a provision for him not to sin, but does not make sin an impossibility. The believer may still yield to some prompting of the lower part of his nature denominated by Paul as "the flesh" and yield to temptation and commit sin despite the provision made for him not to sin by the implantation of a higher nature. He must choose rather to walk in the Spirit and not fulfill the lust of the flesh (Galatians 5:16). By the same token, the fact that sin rules in the unregenerate as a principle does not mean sin is for them an unavoidable necessity. It simply means that they are predisposed to sin, having a "bent" to sinning. They can still be held accountable for their deeds because each act is an assent of the will to gratify their lusts, all of which we discussed in the article on original sin. Finney adds,

In this case holy exercises and living are only the gratification of a constitutional appetite, implanted in regeneration .... (p.229)

No, holy exercises and living are not "only the gratification of a [new] constitutional appetite," but also acts of the will which is now surrendered to God to do His will. The new principle is a bent to righteousness just as the former principle was a bent to sinning. We must choose to follow after the new principle of holiness within us which Paul variously calls the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus or simply the spirit. Finney continues:

2. The divine efficiency scheme or theory .... (p.229) 3. The susceptibility scheme. This theory represents, that the Holy Spirit's influences are both physical and moral; that he, by a direct and physical influence, excites the susceptibilities of the soul and prepares them to be affected by the truth; that he, thereupon, exerts a moral or persuasive influence by presenting the truth, which moral influence induces regeneration .... (p.231) .... In reply, ... .I admit and maintain that regeneration is always induced and effected by the personal agency of the Holy Spirit [but not by a physical, but only a moral, influence] .... (p.232) [A] physical influence has been inferred from the fact, that sinners are represented as dead in trespasses and sins, as asleep, etc. etc. But all such representations are only declaratory of a moral state, a state of voluntary alienation from God .... (p.233)

In other words all such representations are to be taken only figuratively, a favorite resort of Finney and nearly everyone else who comes up on something in Scripture they don't like.

4. The last theory .. .is that of a Divine Moral Suasion. This theory teaches-(l.) That regeneration consists in a change in the ultimate intention or preference of the mind, or in a change from selfishness to disinterested benevolence; and (2.) .... that the Holy Spirit effects it with, through, or by the truth. The advocates of this theory assign the following as the principal reasons in support of it. (1.) The Bible expressly affirms it. (p.234) [Quotes John 3:5,6; 1 Peter 1:23; James 1:18; 1 Corinthians 4:15.]. .. When God affirms that he regenerates the soul with or by the truth, we have no right to infer that he does it in some other way .... (p.235) (Ibid., pp.219-235)

The Bible does indeed affirm that God regenerates us through the means of the truth of His Word as we have freely acknowledged, but this does not mean the Bible affirms that regeneration consists in nothing else but "a change in the ultimate intention or preference of the mind" or will. Finney seems to think that the two are necessarily the same, which they are not.

One of the most obvious peculiarities on Finney's views on the subject is how it does not comport with his own account of his own dramatic conversion experience in his Autobiography. Finney was born in 1792 and grew up in practically "wilderness" areas of New England where there was so little religious training available that when he went to study law at a law office in Adams, New York, in 1818 at the age of 26 he was, he says, "almost as ignorant of religion as a heathen." There he sat under the ministry of an "Old School" hyper-Calvinist Presbyterian pastor named George W. Gale. In his study of law, Finney ran across many old authors who frequently quoted Scripture, and this led him to purchase the first Bible he had eve,r owned so that he could consult it when he found a reference to it in his studies. This led, in turn, to a further interest in the Bible. He had many lengthy conversations with Mr. Gale and the church elders, mostly to satisfy his intellectual curiosity, but soon he became restless and realized that if he should die he was not fit for heaven. He attended the church's prayer meetings each week but was troubled by the fact that although they did a lot of praying about almost everything, they asked for the same things over and over again without obtaining answers. It seemed to Finney that they didn't expect answers to their prayers. This was a great stumbling block to his coming to faith. On one occasion, knowing he was unconverted, they asked Finney if they could pray for him; but he refused, saying it would do little good seeing they never got answers to their prayers. He had read in his Bible the promises of Jesus to hear and answer prayer, which led him to doubt either that the Bible was true or that these were real Christians or that he was understanding these promises correctly. Nevertheless, after two or three years of struggling, he finally came to the conclusion that the Bible was the Word of God. This having been settled, he could not continue comfortably in unbelief about his soul's condition. Finney began to seek his salvation during a time in which the church had come into somewhat of a revival of religion under the preaching of Mr. Gale and others:

On a Sabbath evening just at this time of my history I made up my mind that I would settle the question of my soul's salvation at once, that if it were possible I would make my peace with God. But as I was very busy in the affairs of the office, I knew that without great firmness of purpose I should never effectually attend to the subject. I therefore, then and there resolved, as far as possible to avoid all business, and everything that would divert my attention, and to give myself wholly to the work of securing the salvation of my soul. I carried this resolution into execution as sternly and thoroughly as I could. I was, however, obliged to be a good deal in the office. But as the providence of God would have it, I was not much occupied either Monday or Tuesday, and had opportunity to read my Bible and engage in prayer most of the time. But I was very proud without knowing it. (The Memoirs of Charles G. Finney, The Complete Restored Text, Garth M. Rosell & Richard A.G. Dupuis, Editors; Zondervan: Grand Rapids,MI; 1989, p.16)


Finney says his pride revealed itself in three ways. First, although he had regularly attended prayer meetings for some time, he now found he was quite unwilling that anyone should know he was praying for his own salvation, so he could not pray above a whisper and that only after stopping up the keyhole to his door lest someone should peek in and catch him praying! Second, although he had formerly read and openly displayed his Bible on his desk, he now found that he was ashamed lest someone should find him reading it, so he kept it out of sight or threw other books on top of it quickly if someone came in. Third, although he had been quite outspoken in conversing about religion, he now found he was unwilling to speak with anyone about it. On that Monday evening, according to Rev. Gale's own account, Finney attended an inquiry meeting for those seeking salvation. At first Mr. Gale thought he might have come to find fault with them as he was often guilty of doing and asked him as much-

He [Finney] looked at me, with an air of solemnity I shall never forget. "No, Mr. Gale," said he, "I have not. 1 am willing now to be a christian." ... We sat down together. "Do you think," said he, "there is any hope in my case?" 1 told him 1 had not liked his course ... .! told him he might be converted, but if he were it would be something very similar to God's exercising miraculous power ... As 1 had conversed with all present 1 requested them all to kneel, while 1 prayed with them, as my custom was. He kneeled by my side, deeply impressed. He asked me long afterward if 1 did not feel the house tremble while we kneeled. He said he trembled so that he thought the house shook. 1 said 1 did not notice it. (G.W. Gale, Autobiography of George Washington Gale; New York: privately printed; 1964, pp.176-177; quoted in Memoirs, op.cit., p.17)

Finney continues:

On Monday and Monday night, and Tuesday and Tuesday night, my convictions increased; but still it seemed as if my heart grew harder. 1 could not shed a tear; 1 could not pray. 1 had no opportunity to pray above my breath; and frequently 1 felt, if 1 could be alone where 1 could use my voice and let myself out, I should find relief in prayer .... (p.17) On Tuesday night 1 had become very nervous; and in the night a strange feeling came over me as if I was about to die. I knew that if I did I should sink down into hell. I felt almost like screaming; nevertheless I quieted myself as best I could until morning. In the morning I rose, and at an early hour started for the office. But just before I arrived at the office something seemed to confront me with questions like these. Indeed it seemed as if the inquiry was within myself, as if an inward voice said to me, "What are you waiting for? Did you not promise to give your heart to God? And what are you trying to do? Are you endeavoring to work out a righteousness of your own?"

Just at this point the whole question of Gospel salvation opened to my mind in a manner most marvelous to me at the time. I think I then saw, as clearly as I ever have in my life, the reality and fullness of the atonement of Christ. I saw that his work was a finished work; and that instead of having, or needing, any righteousness of my own to recommend me to God, I had to submit myself to the righteousness of God through Christ. Indeed the offer of Gospel salvation seemed to me to be an offer of something to be accepted, and that it was full and complete; and that all that was necessary on my part, was to get my own consent to give up my sins, and give myself to Christ. Salvation, it seemed to me, instead of being a thing to be wrought out by my own works, was a thing to be found entirely in the Lord Jesus Christ, who presented himself before me to be accepted as my God and my Savior.

Without being distinctly aware of it, I had stopped in the street right where the inward voice seemed to arrest me. How long I had remained in that position I cannot say. But after this distinct revelation had stood for some little time before my mind, the question seemed to be put, "Will you accept it now, today?" I replied, "Yes; I will accept it today, or I will die in the attempt."

North of the village, and over a hill lay a grove of woods, in which I was (p.lS) in almost the daily habit of walking, more or less, when it was pleasant weather. It was now October, and the time was past for my frequent walks there. Nevertheless, instead of going to the office I turned and bent my course for that grove of woods, feeling that I must be alone and away from all human eyes and ears, so that I could pour out my prayer to God. But still my pride must show itself.

As I went over the hill it occurred to me that some one might see me, and suppose that I was going away to pray. But 1 presume that there was not a person on earth that would have suspected such a thing had he seen me going. But so great was my pride, and so much was 1 possessed with the fear of man, that 1 recollect that 1 skulked along under the fence, till 1 got so far out of sight that no one from the village could see me. 1 then penetrated into the woods for, 1 should think, a quarter of a mile, went over on the other side of the hill, and found a place between three or four large trunks of trees. There 1 saw 1 could make a kind of closet. 1 crept into this place and knelt down for prayer. As 1 turned to go up into the woods, 1 recollect to have said, "1 will give my heart of God, or 1 never will come down from there." 1 recollect repeating this as 1 went up-"I will give my heart to God before 1 ever come down again."

But when I attempted to pray I found that my heart would not pray. I had supposed that if I could only be where I could speak aloud, without being overheard, I could pray freely to God. But lo! when I came to try, I was dumb: that is, I had nothing to say to God; or at least I could say but a few words, and those without heart. In attempting to pray I would hear a rustling in the leaves, as 1 thought, and would stop and look up to see if somebody was not coming. This 1 did several times. [According to a footnote in the narrative, even here Finney was so paranoid that he felt someone might be on the other side of the tree secretly listening to him, so he actually walked around it several times in a vain attempt to discover the spy.] Finally I found myself verging fast to despair. I said to myself, "I find I cannot pray. My heart is dead to God, and will not pray." I then reproached myself for having promised to give my heart (p.19) to God before I left the woods. I thought I had made a rash promise, that I should be obliged to break. That when 1 came to try I found I could not give my heart to God. My inward soul hung back, and there was no going out of my heart to God. I began to feel deeply that it was too late, that it must be that I was given up of God and was past hope. The thought was pressing me just at this moment of the rashness of my promise, that 1 would give my heart to God that day or die in the attempt ... .I recollect that a great sinking and discouragement came over me at this point....

Just at this moment I again thought I heard someone approach me, and I opened my eyes to see whether it were so. But right there the revelation of my pride of heart as the great difficulty that stood in the way, was distinctly shown to me. An overwhelming sense of my wickedness in being ashamed to have a human being see me on my knees before God, took such powerful possession of me, that I cried out at the top of my voice, and exclaimed that I would not leave that place if all the men on earth and all the devils in hell surrounded me. "What!" 1 said, "such a degraded sinner as 1 am, on my knees confessing my sins to the great and holy God; and ashamed to have any human being, and a sinner like myself, know it, and find me on my knees endeavoring to make my peace with my offended God!" The sin appeared awful, infinite. It broke me down before the Lord. Just at that point this passage of Scripture seemed to drop into my mind with a flood of light: "Then shall ye go and pray unto me, and 1 will answer you. Then shall ye seek me and shall find me, when you search for me with all your heart" [Jer.29:12,13]. I instantly seized hold of this with my heart. .. .I was as conscious as I was of my existence of trusting, at that moment, in God's veracity .... I knew that it was God's Word, and God's voice, as it were, that spoke to me. I cried to Him, "Lord, I take thee at thy Word. Now thou knowest that I do search for thee with all my heart, and that I have come here to pray to thee; and thou hast promised to hear me." That seemed to settle the question of the fact that I could then, that day, perform my vow .... (p.20) I told the Lord that I should take Him at His Word, and that He could not lie; and that therefore I was sure that he heard my prayer, and that He would be found of me.

He then gave me many other promises both from the Old and New Testaments, and especially some most precious promises respecting our Lord Jesus Christ. I never can, in words, make any human being understand how precious and true those promises appeared to me. 1 took them one after the other as infallible truth, the assertions of God who could not lie. They did not seem so much to fall into my intellect as into my heart, to be put within the grasp of the voluntary powers of my mind; and I seized hold of them, appropriated them, and fastened upon them with the grasp of a drowning man.

I continued thus to pray, and to receive and appropriate promises for a long time, I know not how long. At any rate -15-I prayed until my mind became so full, that before I was aware of it I was on my feet, and tripping up the ascent toward the road. The question of my being converted had not so much as arisen to my thought. But as I went up brushing through the leaves and brush, I recollect saying with great emphasis, "If I am converted, I will preach the Gospel."

I soon reached the road that led to the village, and began to reflect upon what had passed; and I found that my mind had become most wonderfully quiet and peaceful. I said to myself, "What is this? I must have grieved the Holy Ghost entirely away. I have lost all my conviction. I have not a particle of concern about my soul; and it must be that the Spirit has left me." ... Then I remembered what I had said to God while I was on my knees. That I had said I would take Him at His Word;-and indeed I recollected a good many things that I had said, and concluded that it was no wonder that the Spirit had left me. That for such a sinner as I was to take hold of God's Word in that way, was presumption if not blasphemy. I concluded that in my excitement I had grieved the Holy Spirit, and perhaps committed the unpardonable sin. (p.21)

Finney had gone into the woods after an early breakfast. It seemed to him that very little time had passed, yet when he returned to the village, he found it was noon. He continued to reflect on the quietness of his mind:

... [H]ow was I to account for the quiet of my mind? I tried to recall my convictions, to get back again the load of sin under which I had been laboring. But all sense of sin, all consciousness of present sin or guilt, had departed from me. I said to myself, "What is this, that I cannot scare up any sense of guilt in my soul, as great a sinner as I am?" I tried in vain to make myself anxious about my present state. I found I was so quiet and peaceful that I tried to feel concerned about that, lest it should be a mere result of my having grieved the Spirit away. But take any view of it I would, I could not be anxious at all about my soul, and about my spiritual state. The repose of my mind was unspeakably great. I never can describe it in words. No view that I could take, and no effort that I could make, brought back a sense of guilt, or the least concern about my ultimate salvation. The thought of God was sweet to my mind, and the most profound spiritual tranquility had taken full possession of me. This was a great mystery; but it did not distress or perplex me.

When Finney went to dinner he found he had no appetite.

His employer having gone out to eat, he took his bass viol down in the office and, as he often had done, began playing and singing sacred music. (Finney was an accomplished musician on both violin and bass viol and became the leader of the choir when he came to Adams.) As soon as he began to play, he began to weep:

It seemed as if my heart was all liquid; and my feelings were in such a state that I could not hear my own voice in singing without causing my Sensibility to overflow. I wondered at this; and tried to suppress my tears, but could not.. .. After trying in vain to suppress my tears, I put up my instrument and stopped singing.

After dinner we were engaged in removing our books and furniture to another office. We were very busy in this, and had but little conversation all the afternoon. My mind, however, remained all the afternoon in that profoundly tranquil state. There was a great sweetness and tenderness in my thoughts and soul.. .. (p.22) Just before evening the thought took possession of my mind, that as soon as I was left alone in the new office that night, I would try to pray again. That I was not going to abandon the subject of religion and give it up, at any rate; and therefore, although I no longer had any concern about my soul, still I would continue to pray.

Just at evening we got our books and furniture adjusted; and I made up in an open fireplace a good large fire, hoping to spend the evening alone. Just as it was dark Esq. Wright, seeing that everything was adjusted, bid me good night and went to his home. I had accompanied him to the door; and as I closed the door and turned around, my heart seemed to be liquid within me. All my inward feelings seemed to rise and pour themselves out; and the impression on my mind was,-"I want to pour my whole soul out to God." The rising of my soul was so great that I rushed into the Counsel room, back of the front office, to pray. There was no fire, and no light, in the room; hence it was dark. Nevertheless it appeared to me as if it was perfectly light.

As I went in and shut the door after me, it seemed as if I met the Lord Jesus Christ face to face. It did not occur to me then, nor did it for sometime afterward, that it was wholly a mental state. On the contrary, it seemed to me that I met him face to face, and saw him as I would see any other man. He said nothing, but looked at me in such a manner as to break me right down at his feet. I have always since regarded this as a most remarkable state of mind; for it seemed to me a reality that he stood before me, and that I fell down at his feet and poured out my soul to him. I wept aloud like a child, and made such confessions as I could with my choked utterance. It seemed to me as if I bathed his feet with my tears; and yet I had no distinct impressions that I touched him, that I recollect. I must have continued in this state for a good while; but my mind was too much absorbed with the interview to recollect scarcely anything that I said.

But I know as soon as my mind became calm enough to break off from the interview, I returned to the front office and found that the fire that I had just made of large wood was nearly burned out. But as I returned and was about to take a seat by the fire, I received a mighty baptism of the Holy Ghost. Without expecting it, without ever having the thought in my mind that there was any such thing for me, without any recollection that I had ever heard the thing mentioned by any person in the world, at a moment entirely unexpected to me, the Holy Spirit descended upon me in a manner that seemed to go through me, body and soul. I could feel the impression, like a wave of electricity, going through and through me. Indeed it seemed to come in waves of liquid love;-for I could not express it in any other way. (p.23) And yet it did not seem like water, but rather as the breath of God. I can recollect distinctly that it seemed to fan me, like immense wings; and it seemed to me, as these waves passed over me, that they literally moved my hair like a passing breeze. No words can express the wonderful love that was shed abroad in my heart. It seemed to me that I should burst. I wept aloud with joy and love, and I do not know but I should say I literally bellowed out the unutterable gushings of my heart. These waves came over me, and over me, and over me one after the other, until I recollect I cried out, "I shall die if these waves continue to pass over me." I said to the Lord, "Lord, I cannot bear any more," yet I had no fear of death. How long I continued in this state, with this baptism continuing to roll over me and go through me, I do not know. (p.24)

In the late evening, a choir member from the church came in and asked Finney if he was in pain or felt ill. Finney replied that he was quite happy. The choir member left and returned in a few minutes with an elder from the church who was known for his seriousness. He also asked him how he felt and when Finney began answering him, the elder began laughing deeply and uncontrollably. Finney was greatly perplexed by this, asking himself, "Why did Elder Bond laugh like that? Did he think I am deluded or crazy?" A great darkness came over his mind:

A cloud seemed to shut in over me. I had no hold upon anything in which I could rest; and after a little while I retired to bed, not distressed in mind, but still at a loss to know what to make of my present state. Notwithstanding the baptism I had received, this temptation so obscured my views that I went to bed without feeling sure that my peace was made with God.

Finney soon fell asleep, but almost as quickly woke up again, unable to sleep, being overwhelmed with the love of God by the Spirit moving within him. This was repeated several times until finally late that night he was able to obtain sounder sleep.

When I awoke in the morning the sun had risen, and was pouring a clear light into my room. Words cannot express the impression that this sunlight made upon me. Instantly the baptism that I had received the night before returned upon me in the same manner. I arose upon my knees in the bed and wept aloud for joy, and remained for some time too much overwhelmed with the baptism of the Spirit to do anything but pour out my soul to God. It seemed as if this morning's baptism was accompanied with a gentle reproof, as if the Spirit seemed to say to me, "Will you doubt?" "Will you doubt?" I cried, "No! I will not doubt; I cannot doubt." He then cleared the subject up so much to my mind that it was in fact impossible for me to doubt that the Spirit of God had taken possession of my soul.

In this state I was taught the doctrine of justification by faith as a present experience .... (p.25) I could now see and understand what was meant by the passage, "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." I could see that the moment I believed while up in the woods, all sense of condemnation had entirely dropped out of my mind; and that from that moment I could not feel a sense of guilt or condemnation by any effort that I could make. My sense of guilt was gone, my sins were gone; and I do not think I felt any more sense of guilt than if I never had sinned. (p.26) (All quotations from The Memoirs of Charles G. Finney, op. cit., pp.16-26)

Finney's testimony is remarkably harmonious with the view of regeneration he excoriates in his theology and counter to his own views of it expounded there.

First, his conversion began, quite commonly, with the conviction that he was a lost sinner, which was followed by his resolution to seek his salvation. This resolution and how it was carried out is not inconsistent with "New Light" Calvinism however contrary it may have run against "Old Light" Calvinism. Finney's added resolve not to leave his place of prayer in the woods until his salvation was settled runs counter to Calvinism, but no matter what theological system one subscribes to, there was no guarantee that God would honor such a resolve. Finney might just as well have been denied this outcome at this specific time just as many others have been. He was subsequently assured by God that it would indeed be settled on the spot, but only on condition that he seek with all his heart, to which he, but not necessarily others, complied.

Second, even though he resolved to settle his salvation, this resolve was tested and found wanting and would have failed him had it not been for supernatural intervention by the Spirit of God bringing him encouragement and revelation to sustain that resolve. But this is not the claim Finney makes for the free will of man in regeneration, where the bare change of the will constitutes regeneration.

3) If regeneration is a mere change of the will induced by the moral influence of the Holy Spirit as he maintains, why all the struggle in his conversion? Why didn't he just change his will from selfishness to benevolence and be done with it? Why have to go out into the woods and "have it out with God once and for all"? He could have just walked on calmly to his office and declared himself at peace with God and justified.

4) By the same token, if the will of man were as free as Finney maintains in his theology, why all the struggle with himself? Why was it so hard to put down his pride, yea, impossible without the supernatural assistance of the Holy Spirit? In his theology Finney stoutly maintains that nothing is back of sin but the will, that there is no such thing as being bound by sin against one's will. But in his own experience, he was bound by pride and could not set himself free from it and would not have been humbled to its destruction without the moving of the Holy Spirit breaking him down. He could not shed a tear or even pray effectively until assisted by the Holy Spirit. Surely this is consistent with Calvinism and contrary to his views of the free will of man in salvation.

5) Why, instead of struggling and agonizing over giving his heart to God, didn't he just "make himself a new heart" (from Ezekiel 18:31) as he so often later insisted in his preaching and theology. The truth is, he couldn't make himself a new heart; it took God to do that. But he really gets riled up against those who tell sinners to pray for a new heart or that only God can give you a new heart (Revival Lectures, "XVII. False Comforts for Sinners").

(6) Again, why was there any need to "pour out his heart to God in prayer" at all if regeneration is simply a change of the will from selfishness to benevolence? Why was he so concerned that he could not do this? And in fact he did not do it until enabled by the Holy Spirit. Why was he so concerned that even though he could say some words in prayer he could not "feel"?

7) Notice that Finney's actual conversion experience took place in three distinct stages: first, his prayer in the woods which ended in a measure of peace of mind but not full assurance of salvation; second, his face to face encounter with Christ in the inner office; and third, what he calls a "baptism in the Holy Spirit" in the front office. Whatever happened out in the woods, his experience in the inner office of seeing Christ must be included as part of his salvation experience. What was begun in the woods was completed in the inner office. The third aspect which he termed a "baptism in the Holy Spirit" may have been subsequent to the salvation experience, but not the second aspect when he saw Christ.

My point here is that Finney's vision of Jesus for several hours as part of his salvation experience is also contrary to his insistence that the work of the Spirit in regeneration is only moral, convincing us through moral and Scriptural arguments to surrender our wills to God. He specifies that Christ said nothing to him during this encounter, showing that the influence of Christ (by the Spirit) was not a moral or persuasive influence on him at all but some kind of "physical" influence. Did Christ pour arguments from the Scriptures into his soul during this time or did He pour Himself into him in this experience? Surely it was the latter, but this again runs counter to Finney's insistence that regeneration is not brought about by any direct "physical" influence on the soul or by a "constitutional," that is, a change in nature or substance, of the soul. There can be no doubt that Finney was changed in the very substance of his soul and being by this encounter and the one which immediately followed which he terms the baptism in the Spirit. These were not merely changes in his will brought about by moral, rational, and Scriptural persuasion (which Finney says makes up regeneration) but mighty and direct changes in his inner being by Almighty Power (which is exactly what Calvinism posits of the new birth). He refers to them as "waves of electricity" and "waves of liquid love" that "passed through him body and soul" in such a direct and tangible manner that he requested relief from them. And, "I can recollect distinctly that it seemed to fan me, like immense wings; and it seemed to me, as these waves passed over me, that they literally moved my hair like a passing breeze." Certainly sounds "physical" to me!

Finney's experience according to his account of it ranks along with Augustine's, Bunyan's, and others' as one of the most dramatic and classic conversions of all time. Only the most avid Finney hater (and I have met some) would maintain that he was not truly converted. One severe detractor of his repeatedly referred to Finney not simply as a heretic but "the Arch-Heretic." Surely no right thinking person on any grounds whatsoever could deny that Finney was truly and remarkably converted. The only thing I want to point out about his conversion is how strangely contrary it is to his own dogmatic views of regeneration in his theology.

Notice also how Finney's testimony is at odds with other major points in his theology. He says that the night before his encounter in the woods and in the office he "saw, as clearly as I ever have in my life, the reality and fullness of the atonement of Christ. I saw that his work was a finished work; and that instead of having, or needing, any righteousness of my own to recommend me to God, I had to submit myself to the righteousness of God through Christ. Indeed the offer of Gospel salvation seemed to me to be an offer of something to be accepted, and that it was full and complete; and that all that was necessary on my part, was to get my own consent to give up my sins, and give myself to Christ. Salvation, it seemed to me, instead of being a thing to be wrought out by my own works, was a thing to be found entirely in the Lord Jesus Christ, who presented himself before me to be accepted as my God and my Savior." In the light of what he later said about the atonement and justification, he did indeed see these things more clearly at this time than any other time in his life, before or after. For later, as we have seen, he insisted that the atonement was nowhere near a "finished work" accomplishing anyone's salvation but merely a moral influence leading men to repent! And justification he later said is based upon sanctification which is obedience to God's moral law! (All of this we covered in earlier issues.) Here at least he had it right-it was what Christ had done for him in his atonement which waited his mere acceptance that justifies, not any work of his own.

In addition, notice how Finney's use of "heart" all through his testimony runs counter to what he says about it in his theology. There he insists that the heart is the will, not some mysterious "chamber" or "receptacle" somewhere inside of us. But in his own testimony this is exactly how he refers to it: the question came to him, he says, "Did you not promise to give your heart to God?" Must we quite unnaturally think of this as "give your will to God"? If so, why didn't he just do it instead of all the agonizing? No, he meant something other than the will as is evident by what follows: "'I will give my heart to God, or I never will come down from there [the woods].' 1 recollect repeating this as 1 went up-'I will give my heart to God before 1 ever come down again.''' If it was his will to give his heart to God and the heart is the will as he insists, then why didn't he just content himself that he had already given his heart to God? This is immediately followed by, "But when 1 attempted to pray I found that my heart would not pray." Now what sense can you make of this if the heart is the will? Surely it was Finney's will to pray-that's why he went into the woods. Further, he actually did pray, proving that it was his will to pray. But he adds that his heart would not pray. According to his own testimony, then, but contrary to his later theology, his heart was not his will. "I could say but a few words, and those without heart." Then a little further, "I said to myself, 'I find 1 cannot pray. My heart is dead to God, and will not pray.'" How can your will be dead to God? And how can your will both will and not will the same thing at the same time? On further, "I then reproached myself for having promised to give my heart to God before 1 left the woods .... when 1 came to try 1 found I could not give my heart to God. My inward soul hung back, and there was no going out of my heart to God." He tried but he could not give his heart to God? This is the very idea he blasts away at later in his Revival Lectures ("XVII. False Comforts for Sinners" and "XVIII. Directions to Sinners") Why couldn't he give his heart to God if the heart is the will and it was obviously his will to do so? And isn't trying but not being able to give his heart to God just the same as trying and not being able to love God or trying and not being able not to sin which he roundly ridicules as absurd in his theology? On further, "[T]he revelation of my pride of heart as the great difficulty that stood in the way, was distinctly shown to me." And there was nothing he could do about this pride with his will. On further, referring to his receiving the promise God offered him while praying, he says, "I instantly seized hold of this with my heart," which, as the emphasis indicates, he means with something more than the mere will as is evident from what follows. Of the other Scripture promises that God went on to supernaturally impart to him, he says, "They did not seem so much to fall into my intellect as into my heart, to be put within the grasp of the voluntary powers of my mind." How could these promises "fall" into his heart if his heart were his will? He is saying that they first fell into his heart, then were grasped by his will. Clearly he makes a distinction between the heart and the voluntary powers of his mind, which is quite contrary to his later definition of "heart." Later in his testimony when his boss left the office, Finney says, "[W]hen I closed the door and turned around, my heart seemed to be liquid within me. All my inward feelings seemed to rise and pour themselves out." What, his will was liquid within him? Of course not. And later still of his baptism in the Spirit, "No words can express the wonderful love that was shed abroad in my heart. It seemed to me that I should burst ... .! literally bellowed out the unutterable gushings of my heart." What, his will would burst? Nonsense. He uses the term "heart" in just he same way he later ridicules in his theology, as a "receptacle" that seemed so full as to be ready to burst and out of which came "unutterable gushings" due to its overflowing fullness. All of this is profoundly contrary to what Finney goes on and on about concerning the heart in his theology. It seems his best theology came at his conversion-the rest was all down hill from there.

I believe I have one more article in me on Finney and his theology-a summary with conclusions. If Finney was so wrong on major doctrines of Christianity, how could it be that he was so successful as an evangelist? Or was he as successful as many suppose? Or was he completely deceived and merely deceived others instead of truly converting them?

Answers next time.
Leon Stump, Pastor of Victory Christian Center