I recently came across two posts which led me to spend some time considering the legacy of Charles Finney.
First, I read this post by Ryan Debarr: “Depravity and the Altar Call, part one“. Ryan focuses on the altar call (or the invitation) in respect to Christians, not its evangelistic use. I agree with him that the altar call’s emphasis on making decisions may very well harm true Christian growth. Ryan says, “Rarely does a person give up a sin with a one-time act of the will….We should be more honest with people. It is usually not so easy as a mouthing a few words one time.”
Then I came across a post by Captain Headknowledge(aka John Chitty) on Charles Finney. He was celebrating Finney’s 214th birthday! Well, if you read his post, you may not think he is actually “celebrating” the occasion at all.
Now it goes without saying that Finney is lauded in many circles, especially among fundamentalists. He was required reading at my alma mater. While IFBx fundamentalists warn against reading the likes of MacArthur or Piper, they encourage the reading of Finney. Yet Finney is a heretic!
Yes, I said it, a heretic. If you have any doubt read this article by Phil Johnson which documents his heresy in detail. He denied original sin, substitutionary atonement (penal satisfaction), and even justification by faith alone. For proof on the last point I submit the following quote from his own Systematic Theology.
By sanctification being a condition of justification, the following things are intended:
(1.) That present, full, and entire consecration of heart and life to God and His service, is an unalterable condition of present pardon of past sin, and of present acceptance with God. (2.) That the penitent soul remains justified no longer than this full-hearted consecration continues. If he falls from his first love into the spirit of self-pleasing, he falls again into bondage to sin and to the law, is condemned, and must repent and do his “first work,” must turn to Christ, and renew his faith and love, as a condition of his salvation. . . .
Perseverance in faith and obedience, or in consecration to God, is also an unalterable condition of justification, or of pardon and acceptance with God….[1]
Yet it is not Finney’s theology for which we most remember him today. Indeed most evangelicals have forgotten that he was a heretic. His theology may have influenced some liberals, but it is his methodology which has come to influence almost every sector of evangelicalism today.
Finney was known for his “new methods”. He measured the value of methods based on how well they produced results. Thus, pragmatism was the hallmark of his ministry. Some of the methods that he either originated or popularized include “a more dramatic form of preaching”, “public prayer used as a tool for applying pressure to sinners”, protracted evangelistic meetings[2], and the “use of the ‘prayer of faith’and the ‘anxious bench'”[3]. The invitation system as we know it today (also known as the altar call) was popularized by finney in the 1830s. According to Albert Dod a professor at Princeton who was a contemporary critic of Finney, “one will search in vain for a single example of this practice [i.e. the invitation system] before the 1820’s”[4].
This leads us back to thinking about the altar call. Finney had theological reasons for utilizing the altar call. He believed that salvation was dependent on sinners using their will to reform/repent and believe. The methods he used had to be effective in breaking the stubborn will of sinners.[5] So Finney used the altar call to put pressure on people to believe on the spot. And the tactic worked. It produced results. Yetthe results Finney produced (by some accounts as many as 500,000 converts) are contested. Even Finney’s own contemporary supporters recorded that the vast majority of the converts had not remained true to the Christian faith years later.[6]
Today, the altar call continues to be used prominently. And it continues to present inherent problems. I came across another blog post by Tim Irvin from a blog named “If Error is Harmless…Then Truth is Useless” (HT: Thirsty Theologian) which highlights how exactly the altar call can be harmful. Let me provide an excerpt from a quote Timgives by Jim Ehrhard which gets to the crux of the issue.
Here we have one of the greatest dangers of the invitation system. Even those employing it go to great pains to make clear that “going down the aisle” does not save anyone….Billy Graham, for example, says:
“There’s nothing about the mechanics of coming forward that saves anybody’s soul. Coming forward is an open acknowledgment and a testimony of an inward experience that you have had with Christ. But this inward experience with Christ, this encounter, is the most important thing.”
But examination of the invitation used by Graham shows just how confusing the system is. Keep in mind that Graham has already noted that the coming forward is a “testimony of an inward experience that you have had with Christ.” When is the person converted? Why are they coming?
“I’m going to ask you to come forward. Up there – down there – I want you to come. You come right now – quickly. If you are here with friends or relatives, they will wait for you. Don’t let distance keep you from Christ. It’s a long way, but Christ went all the way to the cross because He loved you. Certainly you can come these few steps and give your life to Him….”
At the “altar,” the confusion continues as he addresses those who have come: “You have come tonight to Jesus Christ, you have come to receive Him into your heart….” Which is it? Have they already come to Jesus, or are they coming now to receive Him? Graham continues: “He receives you; He died for you; He says, ‘Thy sins are forgiven.’ You accept that. The past is forgiven, God forgets…. He cannot even see your sins.”…Then he leads them to repeat a prayer known as “the sinner’s prayer.” The question again is obvious: have they been forgiven, or will they be when they pray the prayer?
To make matters worse, many often add so many things to the invitation that one cannot be certain what he is being asked to do. This was especially true in the invitations of Billy Sunday who often exhorted people to “Come on down and take my hand against booze, for Jesus Christ, for your flag.”[7]
From the above quote you can see that the danger of the altar call is its propensity to confuse the responders. Putting people on the spot might very well result in half-converts, or more precisely, converts that aren’t. In Finney’s case the vast majority wilted as the years passed, and I think it is safe to say that such is the case today. Of the numbers that have responded in Graham crusades or in the evangelistic meetings and general preaching of fundamentalists, how many have truly remained? Could the use of the altar call have been a factor in at least some of these cases? I think so. Perhaps even the ritual of the sinner’s prayer (many times it has devolved into a ritual) is to blame. See my post exploring that question here.
In many respects evangelicals and fundamentalists in particular, have become hand-cuffed to this methodology. Can you imagine how else an evangelist could close an evangelistic appeal to Christ? What can one do other than lead people in a prayer or ask them to come forward? Before 1820 no one ever had utilized either of those methods in preaching the gospel. Paul certainly didn’t. Even Charles Spurgeon did not employ this method. He did have an inquiry room, where awakened sinners could go for personal counseling. Yet even he was wary on depending on that scheme too much. He said: “Sometimes shut up that enquiry-room. I have my fears about that institution if it be used in permanence, and as an inevitable part of the services…. If you should ever see that a notion is fashioning itself that there is something to be got in the private room which is not to be had at once in the assembly, or that God is more at that penitent form than elsewhere, aim a blow at that notion at once.”[8]
In closing, I would like to briefly offer Asahel Nettleton as an alternative. He was the last in a long line of well known Calvinist evangelists, and was a contemporary of Finney’s. Ministering in a much smaller geographical region, with fewer people than the large population centers Finney preached in, Asahel still saw thousands of converts. His numbers do not match Finney’s in sheer magnitude, but they tower above Finney’s in another respect. Nettleton’s converts almost never apostasized. He had 95% or better “perseverance rates”.[9] And you know what? He did not use the altar call. I wonder if this is a lesson for us?
———————————————————————–
Footnotes & Resources for Further Research
[1] Charles Finney, Systematic Theology(Minneapolis: Bethany), 372-73; quoted from “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: How Charles Finney’s Theology Ravaged the Evangelical Movement” by Phillip R. Johnson, an online article accessible here.
[2] Rick Nelson, “How Does Doctrine Affect Evangelism? The Divergent Paths of Asahel Nettleton and Charles Finney” Founder’s JournalSummer 1998 Issue 33–available online here; quote is from paragraph just before the “Applications for Contemporary Evangelism” section (HT: Captain Headknowledge).
[3] Tom Browning, “Charles G. Finney: The Architect of Modern Evangelism”, available online here or in a blog post here.
[4] Albert Dod (in his review of Finney’s Lectures on Revival), quoted by Massimo Lorenzini, “The Modern Invitation System Examined”, available online here; quote taken from this blog post by Tim Irvin.
[5] Rick Nelson, Ibid.
[6] Rick Nelson, Ibid, see text where footnotes 19-22 appear.
[7] Jim Ehrhard, “The Dangers of the Invitation System”, available online here; quote taken from this blog post by Tim Irvin.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Rick Nelson, Ibid, see text where footnote 31 appears. Also, Massimo Lorenzini, ibid (see above #4 for bibliographic info).
Background picture for “The Altar Call” above was borrowed from here; and the Finney picture above was adapted from Phil Johnson’s article listed above.
I attribute the value of learning church history to this clever little saying. I don’t even know where I first heard it, but it rings true to me:
“If you don’t know where you came from, you don’t know where you are, and you can’t tell where you’re going.”
This applies to the altar call, in that, now that we know where the altar call comes from, and the theology which brought it into prominence and the fruit it produced, we can now see clearly to avoid it like the plague; modern evangelicalism has no better retention rate than Finney did, after all, and we can learn to return to the practices of orthodox evangelism, for instance, as recommended in the example of Asahel Nettleton.
Study church history to learn where you came from, apply what you learn to where you are today and be open to whatever correction may be had, and then move on into the future, building on the shoulders of the giants who went before you for the glory of God!
Hey Bob,
Good stuff… I am always fascinated by Finney and his methods that are used.
However, when I see you use stats and results…
“He had 95% or better “perseverance ratesâ€.[9] And you know what? He did not use the altar call. I wonder if this is a lesson for us?”
It takes me back… we had 20 baptisms and 40 re-dedications and… 7 surrenders to the ministry… and… (you get the point).
Gage,
I am not trying to say we should judge ministries on the basis of results. That was one of Finney’s errors. My point in that quote is that of the converts that Nettleton say almost all remained true converts their whole lives, whereas the same is not true of Finney.
The lesson for us is not necessarily to utilize Nettleton’s methodologies. The lesson is that while the methodology of the altar call may seem useful for getting converts, in the end it is not needed. Nettleton was used by God to see many genuine converts without using the altar call.
The point is not how many converts you make, but that those you do stick. And the altar call is not the best way to ensure that this happens.
Does that make sense, Gage?
I can remember doing evangelism in the dorms during college. Whenever someone would utter the “sinner’s prayer” (actually we usually uttered it, and they repeated it), one of the first things we’d try to drill into them was their assurance of eternal life according to 1 John 5:11-12. I know my thinking back then was that as long as they were sincere when they prayed with me, then they surely had “crossed the bridge” to eternal life in Christ, and thus needed a good black & white declaration from scripture of their status before God.
The problem is that I couldn’t really know whether or not they were sincere. And I’m not sure how exactly I would handle things differently today were I in the same scenario. Would I now wait a few days or weeks after presenting the gospel, and see if they still clearly understood the gospel and were showing true signs of a regenerate heart, then ask them to call upon the Lord? Just what exactly did Nettleton’s methods look like? I also think of the conversions of multitudes in Acts (thousands in Ch. 2). What am I to make of these events in comparison to Finney’s altar calls? Were there practical ways in which they were different?
I’m not advocating the altar call, but I’m also trying to flesh out what my “reformed evangelism” should look like in practice.
Bob,
Thank you for the hard work that you put into this post. I hope you don’t mind if in the future I use this as a reference when presenting a critique of the manipulation of people through the use of the invitation.
Keep up the good work!
Mike
Mike,
Thanks, and no problem.
Bob
Steve,
In Acts there are no altar calls. People were exhorted to “repent and be baptized” in Acts 2. They were not led in a prayer.
Check out this post about the sinner’s prayer, and then consider this one about eternal security. I think in our zeal to give assurance to someone, we minimize the Scriptural call to persevere in faith. We don’t have any room for a probationary period, where we trust the person is saved, but allow that they may not yet have genuine faith. It is the fruit of the Spirit’s presence which ultimately gives us strong assurance. 1 John is clear on that point.
I do think we should encourage converts in that Christ is faithful, but we can’t see their hearts. We can just help encourage them to continue in faith, for such continuing is a sure sign that they have genuine faith.
I’m not sure if I am making sense, and I agree this subject deserves some attention. I have several books from before 1900 on evangelism and etc., and I plan on reading them to hear how people instructed others to be saved, and how people instructed others to be evangelists before the predominance of Finney’s tactics. I would encourage us all to read about Nettleton, and read about Spurgeon and his methodology. Let’s not stay in our historical time-bubble. We can learn from these great men of the past.
Thanks, Steve, for honest interaction. I appreciate it. It helps us all to think through posts and issues totally. I don’t expect to have answered all your questions, and the posts I recommended to you, may only give you more. But learning and growing is a process, and I am glad that it can be a team effort.
I’ll not be back to answer questions for a few days at the earliest, so until then, God bless.
Steve,
I must admit that I, too, having transitioned to a Calvinist soteriology, have struggled with the “how-to” of evangelism. We probably just need to avail ourselves of a good, reformed personal evangelism program like Evangelism Explosion or adapt some of the advice from the book, “Tell the Truth” (I forget the author’s name, and I can’t find it on my shelf at the moment.), or seek out solid, Reformed, experienced personal evangelists and learn from them.
It’s easy to fall into distrusting a little too much the simplisticism of our methods learned as fundamentalists. Rod Rosenblatt on the White Horse Inn radio show once encouraged listeners struggling with the question of how we retain the sovereignty of God in the experience of salvation, while at the same time TELLING SOMEONE THAT THEY HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, NAMELY, BELIEVE. Rod advised, go ahead and tell them to believe–if you question your ability to present it in a consistently God-centered manner, you or yours or his pastor can always straighten out the theology of it later. But, by all means, go ahead and lead him to call on the Lord; after all, it’s not the last contact you’re going to have with the new convert, now, is it?
Bob,
I understand your points… I had my tongue firmly planted in cheek, (just reliving the good ole (fundy) days) and it didn’t come across very well…
After reading several of the responses to your article I thought of a story I heard Ian Murray tell. He told a story about Spurgeon who was walking in his Church when one of the passers by told him that he saw one of his converts lying in the gutter drunk that morning. Spurgeon replied, “it probably was one of my converts, not God’s.” The work of conversion is not our work. The work of telling is our work.
Am I too simplistic here?
The other issue I struggle with is the idea that if the Spirit is working in an unbeliever’s life, the finer details of how that person comes to faith in Christ will work themselves out, and that we needn’t be too hung up on the details of how this occurs (other than simply and clearly communicating the gospel message). It would seem that, as a result of the Spirit’s work, the barriers, questions and objections the person may have had will give way without our having to provide answers and explanations for every last thing that seems to be giving them pause. Again, these things will become trivialities if the “efficacious and irresistible work of the Spirit” is underway (or so it would seem).
So what am I getting at? I’m not 100% sure, except that I often struggle with how much I need to worry about apologetically speaking, in order to “convince” someone that Christianity is true, and that they need Christ or they’re lost in their sins. I’m not suggesting that we need to do no more than present the gospel, but I sometimes wonder just *how* much more is required on our part to “win someone over” to Christ, since it’s the Spirit who “wins” them over ultimately, not us.
Admittedly, I grow weary of conversations with unbelievers, wherein I need to spend forever trying to explain things such as where Cain got his wife, or whether the isolated native in the jungles of Africa won’t be saved without faith in Christ. I tire of trying to “prove” to skeptics that the creation and flood are not ridiculous and unscientific explanations for origins and the present state of the Earth, and that Adam and Eve really existed and plunged us into a fallen state by failing the “test.”
I affirm all of the above, but I also remember that not ONE of those issues, nor a giant list of other potential objections ever had any bearing on my conversion. I don’t think I’m unique in this experience, but at the time I became a Christian (college freshman), there simply wasn’t any resistance on my part to believing the gospel. I simply heard it, and said in essence, “yep, sign me up.” I did this having no prior exposure to Christianity or the gospel, but consciously knowing in my heart that there was a God. It was a simple and genuine profession of faith, and I knew inside that something was different between God and me that didn’t exist before. Maybe I was just ignorant at that point in time about some of the narlier teachings and content of scripture that give most skeptics “reasons not to believe.” When I did eventually encounter these, my faith in Christ, and the changes I saw in my life made it easy for me to accept Anything I encountered in scripture, no matter how difficult or fantastic it seemed to the “rational, enlightened and unbelieving world” around me (no, I do not think Christianity is irrational). I guess I can’t explain exactly why I trust and embrace the entire content of scripture so readily, except that it’s simply a supernatural work of the Spirit within that enables me thus. Oh, but that sounds so anti-rational and fideistic! But I think it’s also true because, despite my conviction that Christianity is both reasonable and rational, I can’t rationally explain everything it affirms. And even if I could, I’m so biased now that I could never separate pure rationality from the presuppositions that dictate what *I* consider rational (and unbelievers think are ridiculous!). Uh oh, that last comment reminds me of another monkey wrench question: does ultimate and pure rationality = embracing the Christian worldview, and if so, does all this talk boil down to the simplicity of Paul’s diagnosis of man in Romans 1:18-22?
Thank you for reading as I think (type) out loud. Just trying to sort these things out, as these are nagging issues to me. I cross paths with so many unbelievers today, and it seems that, given the “postmodern spirit of the age,” and the volume of information (and misinformation) and reasons at their disposal to reject Christianity, it will take nothing short of a miracle for anyone to get past the skepticism of the day and embrace Christ by faith. I sometimes ask myself if I knew on the day of my conversion 24+ years ago what I know now, what, if any difference it would make on my willingness to express the “sinner’s prayer.” I guess as a Calvinist, I’m supposed to answer that it would make no difference. Ok, I’m done rambling now.
Brethern
I do pray that the manner in which I coducted worship and altar calls in those early years of ministy will be validated by the Lord. Seeing a few coming to the knowledge of Christ in those years, seeing some good young men and women enter into the ministry by our form of doing ministry. Altar calls was as much of the form of worship as was the singing and preaching.
In Seminiary, my view changed, when Dr. George Norris gave us a different view of the purpose of altar calls. He was a Theologican Professor and Pastor and those two help balance preaching and giving invitations. He didn’t like them.
But in every Baptist Church that I was on staff, the invitation was a major part of the service.
I get your point of this post. “Can you imagine how else an evangelist could close an evangelistic appeal to Christ? So my question is what is another answer?
Steve,
I agree that some things are just an unbeliever’s excuse for rejecting the gospel. Yet we are called to tear down strongholds in unbelievers’ minds through the clarity of the gospel (see 2 Cor. 10:3-6).
I agree that the Holy Spirit ultimately is irresistable to the elect, and that in His time He will bring all of them to repentance no matter what excuse they cling to currently to reject the gospel. That should give us hope and encouragement as we continue to minister, it should not make us cease ministering. Paul said he would give up liberties and do anything he could so that he might win some. It does not appear that Paul had a passivist outlook on evangelism. We should trouble ourselves over being ready to defend the faith on many sides, but ultimately it is not about us gaining converts or trusting in the might of our reasoning and abilities, it is us being faithful to God’s message and trusting Him for results.
I am not sure if I or anyone else can answer all your questions, and I understand where you are coming from. But have faith that God will succeed and that God still wants to use your witness as a means to that success. But for some, our message is one of condemnation that brings death, and will only be a glorious sight that they will never see or a glorious message they will never hear. To others the same message is gloriously seen, heard and embraced as a message of life not death. In each case we must be faithful to trumpet the message and it is the Spirit who makes it efficacious in some and not in others.
Does this help at all?
Charles,
Thanks for interacting over here. I scanned through most of your blog and am impressed that you were willing to change your ministry at such risk to your reputation. You truly have experienced much more fundamentalism than most who comment here. Reading your blog reminded me of the fervent spirit that permeates much of those who we would brand IFBx. They may deserve the branding but there are many who are genuine and sincerely love Christ even though they use certain tactics that we would find questionable. It is good to be reminded of this, and try all the more to be careful and loving in our judgments of “cultural fundamentalists”.
Now back to your question. How else can the evangelist do it? Well, before 1820 no evangelist (not George Whitfield or John Wesley, or any other evangelists before 1820) used an altar call. In Acts, there is no invitation given. People are exhorted to believe in Christ or to repent, but they are not lead in a prayer or asked to come forward. It seems that the converts sought the Scriptures and hovered around Paul and the other missionaries, perhaps they had qeustions, etc. They became followers and kept coming to hear more teaching.
A method that was used prior to altar calls was enquirers’ meetings. Those who felt awakened to their sense of need would come and seek counsel from the pastor or evangelist after the service. This can happen naturally or can be planned out. But the idea of manipulating people is very problematic. At my church, people are invited to come forward and speak with a pastor or prayer team member if they want to talk about anything or if they need prayer. This is something with no pressure, but it leaves a door open for spiritual conversations and evangelism to take place in a one on one setting.
I do not think we should try to be obscure or to not make it easy for people to receive guidance and counselling with regard to evangelism. I do think there are better ways than utilizing an altar call in a manipulative way. This is not to say that the altar call cannot be conducted in a non-manipulative, healthy way. But the altar call can be seen as a man-made hoop that a potential convert is expected to jump through.
I hope this helps in thinking this through. I just found it enlightening to observe the origins of our modern practice.
I almost included the following quote in my article. I reproduce it here as I was reminded of it as I was thinking through Charles’ question. The line in bold below (emphasis added by me) really strikes home. We have been influenced by this system for so long that we really cannot conceive of life without the altar call.
“Nettleton took up the pen of a ‘prophet’ when he wrote about the ‘new measures’ [introduced by Finney] in 1827:
‘If the evil be not soon prevented, a generation will arise, inheriting all the obliquities of their leaders, not knowing that a revival ever did or can exist without all those evils. And these evils are destined to be propagated from generation to generation, waxing worse and worse.’
And with the excesses of man-centered preaching in churches today, who can say that Nettleton was wrong?”
Quoted from “Charles Finney’s Assault upon Biblical Preaching” by Don Strickland from the Founder’s Journal 1992, Issue 9 (available online here).
Oh, I don’t want to overlook Gage’s point. I think that quote by Spurgeon is really important in this whole discussion.
Bob,
For me the thing from Spurgeon is the point. In reading some of the guys thoughts and concerns about an “Altar Call”, I think it’s easy to blend the idea of commanding men to repent and believe the gospel, and the actual work of conversion that only the Spirit will do. I’ve seen men, (I grew up in Fund..) use manipulation.. “I see that hand”, or the 12th verse of “Just as I am”, or “We aren’t leaving until one more comes”. That’s not what the work of evangelism or preaching is or should be. No one comes to the Father unless the Spirit “drags” him. I liked your comments about what Piper’s Church does. If there is a need for an honest discussion or someone wants to talk about how to have eternal life, then it is a sign that the Spirit is doing the drawing, not some sort of manipulation. In my own Fundy church growing up, at the end of the summer some evangelist, would come in, like Hyles or James Roberson (Baptist at the time) would come in… there would be a great lengthy altar call.. very manipulative. There would be many (re-dedications), many surrenders to preach, many (Not so new) converts. Many of those in my mind were the preachers converts, not the Spirits.
Good stuff, Bob. Finney was indeed a heretic.
FundyRef: Thanks muchly for your site. Some very helpful articles (not just this one!)
I was just thinking about the believers in Acts 2. They were called to (1) repent and (2) be baptised.
Even given the particularly unique workings of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, I would suspect that baptism spoken of is a physical water baptism. (not the Spiritual baptism that cannot be seen or ascertained.)
Isn’t the act of being baptised in water quite similar to that of coming forward at an altar call: i.e., a public declaration of faith, a symbolism of cleaning, and announcing your intention to live God’s way and follow Jesus? [and join the community of believers]
I don’t know if you see old comments like this one, but if you ever reply, plz send me an email too, I’d appreciate it!
Haoran,
I would agree that public baptism is a public declaration of faith. The problem with the altar call is that respoding to that public invitation is often viewed as faith itself. Assurance is given on the basis of having prayed the prayer, not whether or not you are believing, trusting in Christ. The altar call can be used in a good way, I would allow. But it is not a Scriptural means, and both the history behind it, and the widespread abuses of it would make me hesitate to use it.
The same is not true of Baptism, it is a divine prerogative.
I hope that answer helps. Sorry I was so late in answering.
Blessings from the Cross,
Bob Hayton
Hi Bob, I was watching about Finney´s comments He was converted in a Presbiteryan church, but he couldn´t accept the inability of sinner, limited annointed, and I think Inconditional Election, and the Irresistible Grace, parts of 5 flowers of Calvinism, but why many presbiteryan´s ministres couldn´t refuse him, some of them they cannot explain or apologize the calvin Theology, some of the ministres that resist him, died of terribles sicks, other question that I was asking me, if you know tell me please, Finney visited England in 1858, when Spurgeon was a minister in London, they never met them?, opposites theologies, but for me both were great men of God, this century don´t have great servents like them,
Blessings from Panama
Steve,
I ran across your discussion via a google search on Finney and his “mourning bench”. My reason for this research is twofold. First, I was raised in a church where the “altar call” was a prominent feature. Secondly, I reject this as much as I do “the sinner’s prayer” because neither are scriptural and barely historical, which makes them new traditions of men.
Finney, while completely sincere and very effective in putting folk, as did Jonathan Edwards, in fear of their unltimate fates if they did not convert, implemented a lot of philosphical ideas and approaches. One very telling admission on his part is found in his memoirs where he essentially says the “mourner’s bench” effectively replaces baptism. Now that is completely heretical and unscriptural. No where in the scripture is baptism said to cease or be surpassed by any other form of public confession or profession.
I noticed Haoran’s comment regarding Acts 2 and that very historical and scriptural event has been the pratical basis for my maturing belief in baptism being efficacious to conversion. As a result, I am very predisposed to the ana-Baptist approach to the gospel.
Since many Baptist groups have as close a relationship, historically, with these as they do with the Puritans, I have issues with Calvinism.
This is primarily due to the excessive persecution of ana-Baptists, generally, by Calvinist rulers and the Roman Catholic church during the 16th and 17th centuries. These pious and faultless (in the words of their persecutors) folk were dispossessed of homes and countries because they believed in baptism for believers only and that infant baptism was of no effect.
I enetertained Calvinism for quite some time, but cannot reconcile it with scripture. But, I do appreciate that even if you folk are wrong theologically, I believe your heart is in the right place and you hold scripture in high reverence. I just wish everyone would believe the whole Bible. If that would happen, where no one picked out just the verses they like and ignored the ones they cannot explain or reconcile with their belief systems, we would see a truly united Christian church.
Peace in Christ.
Dear Godly Brother In His Vine Yard,
Greetings to you in the wonderful name of our Lord
andSaviour
JesusChrist from our
First of all I praise God that He has privileged me to
write this
letter to you for your kind consideration of
cooperating with me in my
Gospel Ministry.I am Evangelist. A. Rambabu from India. We are a young couple dedicated our
lives to serve the
lord.Our ministry ismainly based on Gospel work in
Rural, Tribal and Remote
slumareas.Our aim is to spread the gospel in every
nook and corner and
promote it to every perishing soul. By God’s grace we
have extended our
Gospel work to many villages in different districts.
But the work seems
to be infinite.We are in need of encouragement and
cooperation of Godly
people likeyou. We have no affiliation with any
organisation and we
have no any kind of support from anywhere. We have
been doing this work by
faith only. Wehave ourco-workers to cooperate with me
to extend the
kingdom of god in ourarea.
India is a country with Hinduism as the main religion.
outof one
billion Indians only 4%25 are Christians. There are more
than 1,000 villages
where never gospel is preached. Our aim is to spread
the gospel to the
unreached areas. In this regard I request you to
extend your esteemed
cooperation to our ministry. We conduct seminars and
gospel conventions
ever year.Thousands of people gather and come forward
to give their
hearts to Jesus. You are warm welcome to India to
share the word of god
with us. We earnestly request you to pay your esteemed
visit to us to see
our work and encourageus. Your kind involvement will
enable us to do a
great deal of gospel work. Please share about our
ministry with your
co-workers and fellow Christians and request them on
our behalf to uphold
us in their regular prayers. Social welfare
activities is a part of
our gospel work. My mother is helped me very much. We
both
leave home in the
morning on the gospel work and on the way we visit
people who are
forsaken. Among them are beggars,
widows,orphans, AIDS victims and dying destitutes in
different miserable
conditions and the sick
people with different incurable diseases. We really
find them in a very
miserable condition. We do our best to treat them to
health and convey
them the good news of Jesus to them. It is really a
responsible and a
challenging work of God. because the word of God
exhorts us to do His
work according to James: 1:27, Luke 14:12-14, Ijohn:
3:17, James 2:16-20,
Luke 10:30to 37.
In this regard I earnestly request you to join your
hands in ours for
the extension of the kingdom of god in India. We
sincerely pray for your
welfare and prosperity. Please convey our heartily
greetings to all who
are cooperating with you in your work.
I await prayerfully and hopefully for your kind and
favorable
response.
Sincerely yours in the Master’s service,
A. Rambabu
It is very sad that many who are ill informed of Finney, or predjudiced by the writings of his detractors, will not gain the advantage of standing on the shoulders of sucessful methods to further reach the lost.
Actually the use of the word methods is misleading as without the Holy Spirit enduement of power all methods are useless, and Finney stressed this in all his teaching. Yet preaching without purposeful method is haphazard and does not emulate the works of our Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ.
Finney recieved such infilling of the Holy Spirit upon his conversion that he immediateley saw the conversion of others he spoke to. He also immediateley left his employment to work for the Lord full time, and after submitting to a year of probation under a “tutor” he was given licence to preach.
The thing that made Finney one of the greastest evangelists since the apostle Paul, was that he remained in the power of the Holy Spirit and under Christ` tutorledge all the days of his life, never preaching without the unction and annointing that breaks the yoke.
While many early accounts show much opposition and fear of him, even as our Lord experienced, many of his opposers saw their error and predjudice when held up to the light of sincere inquiry.
His greatest detractors perhaps were and are today Calvinists who would do well to compare the exempary life of Finney and fruit of the Spirit with that of Calvin, and also their end which as the bible warns is what will count in the final judgement.
Arthur Hansen
New Zealand
There is an insightful yet succinct new book written about the history of the altar call. Learn more at http://www.altarcallbook.com
The bible exhorts us, that if our brother sins against us we are to go to them in person. We should try to get their side of the story and not be used as a tool of the Devil to shoot one of our own.
Since Finney is no longer with us, we should atleast read all the eye witness accounts and the whole story. Many of Finney`s early critics and opposers did concede at the end. And this is the Bible way, the saints from Job to the Apostle Paul all had their vehement opposers, but God vindicated them all.
I have read all that Finney wrote from his lecture series to his systematic theology, and none of the charges levelled at him are factually based, but rather misguided and misquoted excerpts and second hand fishermans tales.
Finney had the highest retention rate of truly converted and repentant sinners of any of his contempories. Having seats filled every week is not proof of success, even the cults boast of that.
The Welsh revival, 100 yrs after his death, was a direct result (among other factors of praying christian) 80,000 tracts Finneys tracts being distributed, and I am a soul saved as result of the Welsh revival trickle down many years after that.
The problem is not Charles finney.the problem is Calvinism and cessationism. These 2 teachings is not biblical and scriptural.