The fact of the matter is that Finney considered himself to be Calvinistic, and that he privately affirmed unconditional election.
That's interesting. Do you have a source for that?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The fact of the matter is that Finney considered himself to be Calvinistic, and that he privately affirmed unconditional election.
The fact of the matter is that Finney considered himself to be Calvinistic, and that he privately affirmed unconditional election.
That's interesting. Do you have a source for that?
IX. Election opposes no obstacle to the salvation of the non-elect.
X. This is the best that could upon the whole be done for the inhabitants of this world.
From the first sermon you linkted, I am not sure how I am to conclude that Finney believed in unconditional election. Notice this inference:
I. Foreknowledge and election are not inconsistent with free agency, but are founded upon it. The elect were chosen to eternal life, because God foresaw that in perfect exercise of their freedom, they could be induced to repent and embrace the Gospel.(Emphasis added)
Also, his whole doctrine of election is quite unusual, as even his headings indicate (the explanations help not at all).
Whoever else may have bought that crazines, it's not exactly unconditional election if it's based on God predicting either who will or who might believe.
I. Foreknowledge and election are not inconsistent with free agency, but are founded upon it. The elect were chosen to eternal life, because God foresaw that in perfect exercise of their freedom, they could be induced to repent and embrace the Gospel.
It's more nuanced than that. It's not God merely predicting. It's God unconditionally foreordaining salvation of his elect and then applying it to them via the ordinary means of preaching and persuasion.
I. Foreknowledge and election are not inconsistent with free agency, but are founded upon it. The elect were chosen to eternal life, because God foresaw that in perfect exercise of their freedom, they could be induced to repent and embrace the Gospel.
It's more nuanced than that. It's not God merely predicting. It's God unconditionally foreordaining salvation of his elect and then applying it to them via the ordinary means of preaching and persuasion.
Riley, how exactly is something unconditional, when it's based (conditioned) on God foreseeing?
but Princeton refuses to let it out in public because of what it contains
God had ordained that x preacher preach y persuasive sermon to z individual, and by this means z individual was persuaded to embrace Christ, as God had determined all along. For he controls all human events by his providence.
God had ordained that x preacher preach y persuasive sermon to z individual, and by this means z individual was persuaded to embrace Christ, as God had determined all along. For he controls all human events by his providence.
Exactly how is this different from the teaching of Romans 10?
but Princeton refuses to let it out in public because of what it contains
Interesting... especially when the Edwards collection is at... Yale!
Edwards Collection
By its neglect and practical denial of the immediate supernatural means of the effectual call as necessary to salvation, as distinct from any human means of persuasion or personal human decision-making.
By its neglect and practical denial of the immediate supernatural means of the effectual call as necessary to salvation, as distinct from any human means of persuasion or personal human decision-making.
In other words, the Finneyan position is that God works through the human means alone without an act of regeneration made by the Holy Spirit in response to the preaching of the word?
By its neglect and practical denial of the immediate supernatural means of the effectual call as necessary to salvation, as distinct from any human means of persuasion or personal human decision-making.
In other words, the Finneyan position is that God works through the human means alone without an act of regeneration made by the Holy Spirit in response to the preaching of the word?
That is as I understand it. This view is a form of divine determinism as distinguished from Arminian-type views. It mainly differs from our view based on anthropology.
By its neglect and practical denial of the immediate supernatural means of the effectual call as necessary to salvation, as distinct from any human means of persuasion or personal human decision-making.
In other words, the Finneyan position is that God works through the human means alone without an act of regeneration made by the Holy Spirit in response to the preaching of the word?
That is as I understand it. This view is a form of divine determinism as distinguished from Arminian-type views. It mainly differs from our view based on anthropology.
The difference is [-]total depravity[/-] radical corruption.
It's not based on God's foreseeing, according to Finney. Go back and read Finney again.
Originally posted by Charles Finney
I. Foreknowledge and election are not inconsistent with free agency, but are founded upon it. The elect were chosen to eternal life, because God foresaw that in perfect exercise of their freedom, they could be induced to repent and embrace the Gospel.
The elect, then, must be those whom God foresaw could be converted under the wisest administration of his government. That administering it in a way that would be most beneficial to all worlds, exerting such an amount of moral influence on every individual, as would result, upon the whole, in the greatest good to his divine kingdom, he foresaw that certain individuals could, with this wisest amount of moral influence, be reclaimed and sanctified, and for this reason, they were chosen to eternal life.
Is that a contrast, or did you change your mind mid-sentence?
I believe the contrast with our view is even deeper. Finney essentially did not believe in the existence of a human nature. For him it was just about the sum of our choices and actions.
Is that a contrast, or did you change your mind mid-sentence?
I believe the contrast with our view is even deeper. Finney essentially did not believe in the existence of a human nature. For him it was just about the sum of our choices and actions.
I dislike the "Total depravity" terminology: too easily misunderstood and imprecise.
Did Finney then believe that we just do things with no reason? Now he's beginning to sound like Leibniz (a harder determinist than any Calvinist).