Finney's Emphasis
On Free Will

Part One

by Dean H. Harvey

III. Finney's presumption of free will as applied to his definition of holiness.

Finney represents holiness as the opposite of sin, as the conscious, enlightened use of the human will in accordance with that which the moral being knows he should do, and which he has the ability to do. In other words, knowledge and ability are essential to be able to not sin, or to be holy. In order to deal with the method God uses to bring men to holiness, Finney discusses justification and regeneration. He argues logically that justification cannot mean that God accepts and justifies the sinner in his sins. He then argues that regeneration cannot mean that there is a change in the substance, or in the constitution, of the sinner in order to deliver him from sin.

A. Finney defines justification as follows:

"(Gospel justification) consists in (the sinner) being...governmentally treated as if he were just; that is, it consists in a governmental decree of pardon or amnesty—in arresting and setting aside the execution of the incurred penalty of law—in pardoning and restoring to favor those who have sinned, and those whom the law had pronounced guilty, and upon whom it had passed the sentence of eternal death, and rewarding them as if they had been righteous."

B. Finney states that the ultimate ground of the sinner's justification is in the "benevolence and merciful disposition of the whole Godhead...

This love made the atonement, but the atonement did not beget this love." Finney then lays down five conditions of justification, which include (1) the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, (2) repentance, (3) faith in Christ, (4) present sanctification, in the sense of present full consecration to God, and (5) perseverance in faith and obedience is also an unalterable condition of justification." He takes strong issue with the idea of justification which is understood as follows: "With them, faith receives an imputed righteousness, and a judicial justification. The first act of faith, according to them, introduces the sinner into this relation, and obtains for him a perpetual justification. They maintain that after this first act of faith it is impossible for the sinner to come into condemnation: that, being once justified, he is always thereafter justified, whatever he may do..." Finney takes strong issue with this view, stating that "It certainly cannot be true that God accepts and justifies the sinner in his sins." The implied requirement is that the person who is justified must use his powers, primarily his will, to turn from sin, and to walk in holiness in accordance with justification.

C. In remarks upon regeneration, Finney writes:

"It (regeneration) is not a change in the substance of soul or body. If it were, sinners could not be required to effect it. Such a change would not constitute a change of moral character. No such change is needed, as the sinner has all the faculties and natural attributes requisite to render perfect obedience to God. All he needs is to be induced to use these powers and attributes as he ought (implying free will).

D. "It has been said that regeneration and a change of heart are identical.

It is important to inquire into the scriptural use of the term heart. The term, like most others, is used in the Bible in various senses. The heart is often spoken of in the Bible, not only as possessing moral character, but as being the source of moral action, or as the fountain from which good and evil actions flow, and of course as constituting the fountain of holiness or of sin, or, in other words still, as comprehending, strictly speaking, the whole of moral character. 'But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.'- Matt. 15: 18-19. 'O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.'- Matt. 12:34-35.

When the heart is thus represented as possessing moral character, and as the fountain of good and evil, it cannot mean:

The bodily organ that propels the blood.

It cannot mean the substance of the soul or mind itself; substance cannot in itself possess moral character.

It is not any faculty or natural attribute.

It cannot consist in any constitutional taste, relish, or appetite, for these cannot in themselves have moral character.

It is not the sensibility or feeling faculty of the mind (what we today would call the emotions)

The very idea of moral character implies, and suggests the idea of, a free action or intention. "The term heart, when applied to mind, is figurative, and means something in the mind that has some point of resemblance to the bodily organ of that name, and a consideration of the function of the bodily organ will suggest the true idea of the heart of the mind. The heart of the body propels the vital current, and sustains organic life. It is the fountain from which the vital fluid flows, from which either life or death may flow, according to the state of the blood. The mind as well as the body has a heart which...is represented as a fountain, or as an efficient propelling influence, out of which flows good or evil, according as the heart is good or evil. This heart is represented, not only as the source...of good and evil, but as being either good or evil in itself, as constituting the character of man, and not merely as being capable of moral character...It is also represented as something over which we have control, for which we are responsible, and which, in case it is wicked, we are bound to change on pain of death.

"Our own consciousness, then, must inform us that the heart of the mind that possesses these characteristics, can be nothing else than the supreme ultimate intention of the soul. 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...Regeneration then is a radical change of the ultimate intention, and of course, of the end or object of life...Regeneration, to have the characteristics ascribed to it in the Bible, must consist in a change in the attitude of the will, or a change in its ultimate choice, intention, or preference..."

E. After discussing justification and regeneration, Finney summarizes what is included in sanctification (holiness):

"4. It has...been shown that nothing is holiness short of full obedience, for the time being, to the moral law...7. We have seen that holiness consists...in obedience of will to the law of God, as it lies revealed in the intellect; that it is expressed in one word, love; that this love is identical with the entire consecration of the whole being to the glory of God, and to the highest well-being of the universe...8...all true saints, while in a state of acceptance with God, do actually render, for the time being, full obedience to all the known requirements of God; that is, that they do for the time being their whole duty—all that God, at this time, requires of them. 9...this obedience is not rendered independent of the grace of God..."

F. "It has long been maintained...that a person is not a Christian who does not aim at living without sin—that unless he aims at perfection, he manifestly consents to live in sin; and is therefore impenitent."

IV. Finney's presumption of free will as it relates to the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ.

A. First of all, let us see what Finney says that the atonement is:

"The English word atonement is synonymous with the Hebrew word cofer. This is a noun from the verb caufar, to cover. The cofer or cover was the name of the lid or cover of the ark of the covenant, and constituted what was called the mercy- seat. The Greek word rendered atonement is katallage. This means reconciliation to favor; from katallasso, to 'change, or exchange.' The term properly means substitution. An examination of these original words, in the connection in which they stand, will show that the atonement is the governmental substitution of the sufferings of Christ for the punishment of sinners. It is a covering of their sins by his sufferings."

B. Finney then explains that the granting of mercy always tends to weaken the law, and therefore the government, which grants mercy.

"...there is a real and great danger in the exercise of mercy under a moral government...that the exercise of mercy will be understood (by its subjects) as encouraging the hope of impunity in the commission of sin." If the penalty of the law is not carried out in one case, it gives hope to another that it will not be carried out in his case. There is a popular bumper sticker which proclaims this wrong message to the world, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven."

C. In Lecture XXVI, entitled The Extent of the Atonement, Finney argues for a general atonement:

"That the atonement is sufficient for all men, and, in that sense, general, as opposed to particular, is also evident from the fact, that the invitations and promises of the gospel are addressed to all men, and all are freely offered salvation through Christ."

This leads us to a very important point which is necessary for us to understand. Calvinists object that we make the will of man supreme, and exalt it over the will of God, with the implication that we make man the author of his own salvation. "Thus the sinner's choice of Christ, and not God's choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation."

Recently I had a conversation with a young missionary, who told me that one of his professors objected to the view I am promoting because it "absolutized" the will of man over the will of God. My response to him was that I believed that it has always been the will of God to save every single man and woman in the world. If that is true, and someone is not saved, where do we lay the blame? At man's feet, because he did not exercise his will in agreement with God's revealed will. Dear friends, let us not compromise on a general atonement. It is God's will to save every single person who will ever live on this earth!

D. The Atonement was not intended to save people without the agreement of their own wills:

Finney proclaims a general atonement, and makes this observation: "While the execution of law may have a strong tendency to prevent the beginning of rebellion among loyal subjects, and to restrain rebels themselves; yet penal inflictions do not, in fact, subdue the heart, under any government, whether human or divine." The atonement was not intended to save people and take them to heaven without the agreement of their own wills, or by God "causing" their wills to bend to His will.

E. Finney examines Romans 7

In a sermon entitled Thanks For the Gospel Victory, based upon Romans 7:25, Finney discusses Paul's great struggle in Romans 7, and his subsequent victory through the atonement of Jesus Christ. He says, "Natural weakness pertains to one's created faculties; moral (weakness), to one's voluntary purposes. Weakness of nature is a misfortune; weakness of moral purpose is a fault."

F. After discussing the weaknesses of Christians, Finney states, "If there be not some efficacious remedy for sin, in the soul, sinners must either be annihilated at death or damned.

So of Christians, if there be not some efficacious remedy, giving them victory over sin, they must be lost." This remedy is never in ourselves...Yet by this I do not mean to say that if any man would use his powers right, he could gain no relief; but I do mean to say that, apart from God, he never will use his own powers right for this end. His own will is committed in an opposite direction...Hence we are constantly pressed with the question, 'Where is the power that can subdue them and give us the victory?'...Paul answers by thanking God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."

G. Finney concludes, "A conscious victory over ourselves and sin is the only evidence of a saving change.

An apparent victory is the only evidence to others of our being savingly changed. This victory consists in being saved from sin, and in becoming like God (in heart and intention. Finney does not mean to imply that we will be like God in any of His natural attributes.). Nothing less is real salvation."

V. Finney's presumption of free will as it relates to the doctrines of election and perseverance.

One of Finney's dilemmas is that he believed in absolute foreknowledge, not as causative of human action, but as a fact included in the broader subject of God's omniscience, and he believed that God cannot have a new thought. "...He (God) never has, and never can have, any accession to his knowledge. Every possible thing that ever was, or will be, or can be an object of knowledge, has been necessarily and eternally known to God. If this were not true, God would be neither infinite nor omniscient."

In my experience, the most common result of this understanding of foreknowledge and election is that things cannot be otherwise than they are. This commonly leads to apathy. This is clear in his sections on Election and Perseverance. In theory he seems to hold the Arminian position on election, and the Calvinistic position on perseverance, but he never allows man to escape from the two logical consequences of free will, personal responsibility and voluntary obedience.

The most common result of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (once in grace, always in grace) is that it leads to apathy, and seems to give the "Christian" a license to sin. Finney never does this. He would say that if you are apathetic, or feel that you have a license to sin, that proves that you are not a Christian, and therefore it was not foreknown that you would be one of the elect, and that you certainly cannot persevere, since you are not one of the elect. He constantly lays the responsibility for abstaining from sin, and for obeying God, at the feet of man.

Conclusion:

I. Definition: Finney opposes all those who call man free, while holding to a theology which denies him freedom.

II. Sin: Finney is adamant that man has no constitutional depravity or sin nature which causes him to sin. He constantly and consistently lays the responsibility for sin at man's feet, through using his free will wrongly. He insists that the alternative makes God the author of sin.

III. Holiness: Finney is also adamant that man at regeneration does not receive a new constitution which now "causes" him to obey God. He still must use his free will to obey the light he has. In his discussion of judicial justification, he shows the bankruptcy of the idea that a man can be judicially justified without any necessity for voluntary obedience from that point on in his life.

IV. The Atonement: The atonement is the power of God in the life of "whosoever will" come and avail himself of its provisions. Man must use his will to come, and he must use his will to walk as a Christian on a day to day basis.

V. Election and Perseverance: Even though in theory Finney seems to hold the Arminian position on election, and the Calvinistic position on perseverance, but he never allows man to escape from the two logical consequences of free will, personal responsibility and voluntary obedience.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boettner, Loraine, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1932.

Finney, Charles G., God's Love For A Sinning World, Kregel Publications, 1966. , Lectures on Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., 1969. A reprint of the 1878 revised edition.

Parkhurst, L. G., Jr., Principles of Liberty, More Great Themes on Romans from the Writings of Charles G. Finney, Bethany House Publishers, 1983.

Williamson, G. I., The Westminster Confession of Faith, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1964.