For Whom Did Christ Die? & What Did Christ Actually Achieve on the Cross for Those for Whom He Died?

by John Piper ©Desiring God Ministries. Website: www.desiringGOD.org. Email: mail@desiringGOD.org. Toll Free: 888-346-4700.

The atonement is the work of God in Christ on the cross whereby he cancelled the debt of our sin, appeased his holy wrath against us, and won for us all the benefits of salvation. The death of Christ was necessary because God would not show a just regard for his glory if he swept sins under the rug with no recompense

Romans 3:25-26 says that God "put Christ forward as a propitiation by his blood...This was to demonstrate God's righteousness because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies those who have faith in Jesus."

In other words the death of Christ was necessary to vindicate the righteousness of God in justifying the ungodly by faith. It would be unrighteous to forgive sinners as though their sin were insignificant, when in fact it is an infinite insult against the value of God's glory. Therefore Jesus bears the curse, which was due to our sin, so that we can be justified and the righteousness of God can be vindicated.

The term "limited atonement" addresses the question, "For whom did Christ die?" But behind the question of the extent of the atonement lies the equally important question about the nature of the atonement. What did Christ actually achieve on the cross for those for whom he died?

If you say that he died for every human being in the same way, then you have to define the nature of the atonement very differently than you would if you believed that Christ only died for those who actually believe. In the first case you would believe that the death of Christ did not actually save anybody; it only made all men savable. It did not actually remove God's punitive wrath from anyone, but instead created a place where people could come and find mercy -- IF they could accomplish their own new birth and bring themselves to faith without the irresistible grace of God.

For if Christ died for all men in the same way then he did not purchase regenerating grace for those who are saved. They must regenerate themselves and bring themselves to faith. Then and only then do they become partakers of the benefits of the cross.

In other words if you believe that Christ died for all men in the same way, then the benefits of the cross cannot include the mercy by which we are brought to faith, because then all men would be brought to faith, but they aren't. But if the mercy by which we are brought to faith (irresistible grace) is not part of what Christ purchased on the cross, then we are left to save ourselves from the bondage of sin, the hardness of heart, the blindness of corruption, and the wrath of God.

Therefore it becomes evident that it is not the Calvinist who limits the atonement. It is the Arminian, because he denies that the atoning death of Christ accomplishes what we most desperately need -- namely, salvation from the condition of deadness and hardness and blindness under the wrath of God. The Arminian limits the nature and value and effectiveness of the atonement so that he can say that it was accomplished even for those who die in unbelief and are condemned. In order to say that Christ died for all men in the same way, the Arminian must limit the atonement to a powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their terrible plight of depravity.

On the other hand we do not limit the power and effectiveness of the atonement. We simply say that in the cross God had in view the actual redemption of his children. And we affirm that when Christ died for these, he did not just create the opportunity for them to save themselves, but really purchased for them all that was necessary to get them saved, including the grace of regeneration and the gift of faith.

We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers -- from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16) -- is made possible because of the cross.

This is the implication of Romans 3:25 where the cross is presented as the basis of God's righteousness in passing over sins. Every breath that an unbeliever takes is an act of God's mercy withholding judgment (Romans 2:4). Every time the gospel is preached to unbelievers it is the mercy of God that gives this opportunity for salvation.

Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell? The answer is that Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men.

But he is especially the Savior of those who believe. He did not die for all men in the same sense. The intention of the death of Christ for the children of God was that it purchase far more than the rising sun and the opportunity to be saved. The death of Christ actually saves from ALL evil those for whom Christ died "especially." (Continue reading here.)

HT: Monergism

Augustus Toplady on Arminianism

"One great contest, between the religion of Arminius, and the religion of Jesus Christ, is, who shall stand entitled to the praise and glory of a sinner’s salvation? Conversion decides this point at once; for I think, that, without any imputation of uncharitableness, I may venture to say, that every truly awakened person, at least when he is under the shine of God’s countenance upon his soul, will fall down upon his knees, with this hymn of praise ascending from his heart, “Not unto me, O Lord, not unto me, but to Thy Name, give the glory: I am saved not for my righteousness, but for Thy mercy and Thy truth’s sake..”

And thus it will be when God has accomplished the number of His elect, and completely gathered in the fulness of His redeemed kingdom. What, do you think, your song will be, when you come to heaven? “Blessed be God, that He gave me free-will; and blessed be my own dear self, that made a good use of it”? O no, no. Such a song as that was never heard in heaven yet, nor ever will, while God is God, and heaven is heaven. Look into the Book of Revelation, and there you will find the employ of the blessed, and the strains which they sing. They cast their crowns before the throne, saying:

Thou art worthy, for Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God, by Thy Blood, out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation (Revelation 9:10)."

Link to Augustus Toplady Bio

Gnostic Worship by Michael S. Horton

Americans are often accused by foreigners of expressing a "greasy familiarity," even with people they have met for the first time. Similarly, there is a greasy familiarity inherent to Gnosticism, based on the belief that we have direct and immediate access to God whenever and however we want. Whenever the children in the public school pray to whomever and however, God has to hear, and whenever sincere people gather in a building to worship according to their own personal tastes and opinions, God is impressed that we took the time and cared enough to worship from our hearts. It was real, and we were vulnerable, honest before God. Greasy familiarity.

Calvinism is the fundamental enemy of the American Religion. This is argued in nearly every recent work on the subject. Harold Bloom cites Swiss theologian Karl Barth and Presbyterian scholar J. Gresham Machen as two major antagonists of American Gnosticism. Similarly, Anne Douglas, Philip Lee, and Wade Clark Roof, flanked by a host of historians, all argue that the repudiation of Calvinism led to the feminization of religion and culture.

Ann Douglas, professor of English at Harvard and Columbia University, in her latest book, on New York City in the 1920's, writes,

"Calvinism...had suffered 'the most spectacular defeat in the history of American religious life.'...The Calvinists' liberal nineteenth-century descendants insisted that God was less a father than a mother,...an 'indulgent Parent' (the term is that of the clergyman Noah Worcester), offering love, forgiveness, and nurture to all who seek Him. The Connecticut theologian Horace Bushnell, known as the 'American Schleiermacher,' explained that true religious experience meant falling back 'into God's arms,' pressed to the divine breast, 'even as a child in the bosom of its mother.'"

God, she says, became "well behaved, even domestic." (1) In her provocative book, The Feminization of American Culture, Douglas demonstrates that Calvinism was unseated by an Arminian and Gnostic tidal-wave that refused to believe any longer in the value of matter, the depravity of the self, helplessness in salvation, total dependence on divine sovereignty, freedom, or mercy. Just as the mainline evangelicals failed to stand by J. Gresham Machen in his struggle for the Presbyterian Church during the 20's, and only rose up in defiance when theological error finally created moral compromises, many of today's evangelicals are ready to attack the blatant Gnosticism of "Sophia" worship in the mainline churches, while less obvious but equally disastrous forms of Gnosticism plague the evangelical world itself. (2)

It would seem that the critics of modern American religion are basically on target in describing the entire religious landscape, from New Age or liberal, to evangelical and Pentecostal, as essentially Gnostic. Regardless of the denomination, the American Religion is inward, deeply distrustful of institutions, mediated grace, the intellect, theology, creeds, and the demand to look outside of oneself for salvation. This, of course, has enormous implications for the Christian life and worship, as well as theology.

In this article we will first pursue the major Gnostic trends in Christian worship, then analyze these trends in the light of Scripture, concluding with suggestions for disentangling ourselves. (Continue reading here.)

HT: Cal.vini.st

Words4Life

"Remember the perfections of that God whom you worship, that he is a Spirit, and therefore to be worshipped in spirit and truth; and that he is most great and terrible, and therefore to be worshipped with seriousness and reverence, and not to be dallied with, or served with toys or lifeless lip-service; and that he is most holy, pure, and jealous, and therefore to be purely worshipped; and that he is still present with you, and all things are naked and open to him with whom we have to do. The knowledge of God, and the remembrance of his all-seeing presence, are the most powerful means against hypocrisy."

RICHARD BAXTER

1615-1691

The Legacy of Charles Finney by Michael S. Horton

HT: Grace Online Library

Jerry Falwell calls him 'one of my heroes and a hero to many evangelicals, including Billy Graham.' I recall wandering through the Billy Graham Center some years ago, observing the place of honor given to Finney in the evangelical tradition, reinforced by the first class in theology I had at a Christian college, where Finney's work was required reading. The New York revivalist was the oft-quoted and celebrated champion of the Christian singer Keith Green and the Youth With A Mission organization. Finney is particularly esteemed among the leaders of the Christian Right and the Christian Left, by both Jerry Falwell and Jim Wallis (Sojourners' magazine), and his imprint can be seen in movements that appear to be diverse, but in reality are merely heirs to Finney's legacy. From the Vineyard movement and the church growth movement to the political and social crusades, televangelism, and the Promise-Keepers movement, as a former Wheaton College president rather glowingly cheered, 'Finney lives on!'

That is because Finney's moralistic impulse envisioned a church that was in large measure an agency of personal and social reform rather than the institution in which the means of grace, Word and Sacrament, are made available to believers who then take the Gospel to the world. In the nineteenth century, the evangelical movement became increasingly identified with political causes--from abolition of slavery and child labor legislation to women's rights and the prohibition of alcohol. At the turn of the century, with an influx of Roman Catholic immigrants already making many American Protestants a bit uneasy, secularism began to pry the fingers of the Protestant establishment from the institutions (colleges, hospitals, charitable organizations) they had created and sustained. In a desperate effort at regaining this institutional power and the glory of 'Christian America' (a vision that is always powerful in the imagination, but, after the disintegration of Puritan New England, elusive), the turn-of-the-century Protestant establishment launched moral campaigns to 'Americanize' immigrants, enforce moral instruction and 'character education.' Evangelists pitched their American gospel in terms of its practical usefulness to the individual and the nation.

That is why Finney is so popular. He is the tallest marker in the shift from Reformation orthodoxy, evident in the Great Awakening (under Edwards and Whitefield) to Arminian (indeed, even Pelagian) revivalism, evident from the Second Great Awakening to the present. To demonstrate the debt of modern evangelicalism to Finney, we must first notice his theological departures. From these departures, Finney became the father of the antecedents to some of today's greatest challenges within the evangelical churches themselves; namely, the church growth movement, Pentecostalism and political revivalism.

Who Is Finney?

Reacting against the pervasive Calvinism of the Great Awakening, the successors of that great movement of God's Spirit turned from God to humans, from the preaching of objective content (namely, Christ and him crucified) to the emphasis on getting a person to 'make a decision.'

Charles Finney (1792-1875) ministered in the wake of the 'Second Awakening,' as it has been called. A Presbyterian lawyer, Finney one day experienced 'a mighty baptism of the Holy Ghost' which 'like a wave of electricity going through and through me...seemed to come in waves of liquid love.' The next morning, he informed his first client of the day, 'I have a retainer from the Lord Jesus Christ to plead his cause and I cannot plead yours.' Refusing to attend Princeton Seminary (or any seminary, for that matter), Finney began conducting revivals in upstate New York. One of his most popular sermons was, 'Sinners Bound to Change Their Own Hearts.'

Finney's one question for any given teaching was, 'Is it fit to convert sinners with?' One result of Finney's revivalism was the division of Presbyterians in Philadelphia and New York into Arminian and Calvinistic factions. His 'New Measures' included the 'anxious bench' (precursor to today's altar call), emotional tactics that led to fainting and weeping, and other 'excitements,' as Finney and his followers called them. Finney became increasingly hostile toward Presbyterianism, referring in his introduction to his Systematic Theology to the Westminster Confession and its drafters rather critically, as if they had created a 'paper pope,' and had 'elevated their confession and catechism to the Papal throne and into the place of the Holy Ghost.' Remarkably, Finney demonstrates how close Arminian revivalism, in its naturalistic sentiments, tends to be to a less refined theological liberalism, as both caved into the Enlightenment and its enshrining of human reason and morality:What's So Wrong With Finney's Theology?

First, one need go no further than the table of contents of his Systematic Theology to learn that Finney's entire theology revolved around human morality. Chapters one through five are on moral government, obligation, and the unity of moral action; chapters six and seven are 'Obedience Entire,' as chapters eight through fourteen discuss attributes of love, selfishness, and virtues and vice in general. Not until the twenty-first chapter does one read anything that is especially Christian in its interest, on the atonement. This is followed by a discussion of regeneration, repentance, and faith. There is one chapter on justification followed by six on sanctification. In other words, Finney did not really write a Systematic Theology, but a collection of essays on ethics.

But that is not to say that Finney's Systematic Theology does not contain some significant theological statements. First, in answer to the question, 'Does a Christian cease to be a Christian, whenever he commits a sin?', Finney answers:

"Whenever he sins, he must, for the time being, cease to be holy. This is self-evident. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned; he must incur the penalty of the law of God...If it be said that the precept is still binding upon him, but that with respect to the Christian, the penalty is forever set aside, or abrogated, I reply, that to abrogate the penalty is to repeal the precept; for a precept without penalty is no law. It is only counsel or advice. The Christian, therefore, is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys; or Antinomianism is true...In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground." (p. 46)

Finney believed that God demanded absolute perfection, but instead of that leading him to seek his perfect righteousness in Christ, he concluded that

"...full present obedience is a condition of justification. But again, to the question, can man be justified while sin remains in him? Surely he cannot, either upon legal or gospel principles, unless the law be repealed...But can he be pardoned and accepted, and justified, in the gospel sense, while sin, any degree of sin, remains in him? Certainly not" (p. 57).

With the Westminster Confession in his sights, Finney declares of the Reformation's formula 'simultaneously justified and sinful', 'This error has slain more souls, I fear, than all the universalism that ever cursed the world.' For, 'Whenever a Christian sins he comes under condemnation, and must repent and do his first works, or be lost' (p. 60).

We will return to Finney's doctrine of justification, but it must be noted that it rests upon a denial of the doctrine of original sin. Held by both Roman Catholics and Protestants, this biblical teaching insists that we are all born into this world inheriting Adam's guilt and corruption. We are, therefore, in bondage to a sinful nature. As someone has said, 'We sin because we're sinners': the condition of sin determines the acts of sin, rather than vice versa. But Finney followed Pelagius, the 5th-century heretic, who was condemned by more church councils than any other person in church history, in denying this doctrine.

Instead, Finney believed that human beings were capable of choosing whether they would be corrupt by nature or redeemed, referring to original sin as an 'anti-scriptural and nonsensical dogma' (p. 179). In clear terms, Finney denied the notion that human beings possess a sinful nature (ibid.). Therefore, if Adam leads us into sin, not by our inheriting his guilt and corruption, but by following his poor example, this leads logically to the view of Christ, the Second Adam, as saving by example. This is precisely where Finney takes it, in his explanation of the atonement.

The first thing we must note about the atonement, Finney says, is that Christ could not have died for anyone else's sins than his own. His obedience to the law and his perfect righteousness were sufficient to save him, but could not legally be accepted on behalf of others. That Finney's whole theology is driven by a passion for moral improvement is seen on this very point: 'If he [Christ] had obeyed the Law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non of our salvation?' (p. 206). In other words, why would God insist that we save ourselves by our own obedience if Christ's work was sufficient? The reader should recall the words of St. Paul in this regard, 'I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.' It would seem that Finney's reply is one of agreement. The difference is, he has no difficulty believing both of those premises.

That is not entirely fair, of course, because Finney did believe that Christ died for something--not for someone--but for something. In other words, he died for a purpose, but not for people. The purpose of that death was to reassert God's moral government and to lead us to eternal life by example, as Adam's example excited us to sin. Why did Christ die? God knew that 'The atonement would present to creatures the highest possible motives to virtue. Example is the highest moral influence that can be exerted...If the benevolence manifested in the atonement does not subdue the selfishness of sinners, their case is hopeless' (p. 209). Therefore, we are not helpless sinners who need to be redeemed, but wayward sinners who need a demonstration of selflessness so moving that we will be excited to leave off selfishness. Not only did Finney believe that the 'moral influence' theory of the atonement was the chief way of understanding the cross; he explicitly denied the substitutionary atonement, which '...assumes that the atonement was a literal payment of a debt, which we have seen does not consist with the nature of the atonement...It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of anyone' (p. 217).

Then there is the matter of applying redemption. Throwing off the Calvinistic orthodoxy of the older Presbyterians and Congregationalists, Finney argued strenuously against the belief that the new birth is a divine gift, insisting that 'regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness to love or benevolence,' as moved by the moral influence of Christ's moving example (p. 224). 'Original or constitutional sinfulness, physical regeneration, and all their kindred and resulting dogmas, are alike subversive of the gospel, and repulsive to the human intelligence' (p. 236).

Having nothing to do with original sin, a substitutionary atonement, and the supernatural character of the new birth, Finney proceeds to attack 'the article by which the church stands or falls'--justification by grace alone through faith alone.

The Protestant Reformers insisted, on the basis of clear biblical texts, that justification (in the Greek,'to declare righteous,' rather than 'to make righteous') was a forensic (i.e., 'legal') verdict. In other words, whereas Rome maintained that justification was a process of making a bad person better, the Reformers argued that it was a declaration or pronouncement that had someone else's righteousness (i.e., Christ's) as its basis. Therefore, it was a perfect, once-and-for-all verdict of right-standing at the beginning of the Christian life, not in the middle or at the end.

The key words in the evangelical doctrine are 'forensic' (meaning 'legal') and 'imputation' (crediting one's account, as opposed to the idea of 'infusion' of a righteousness within a person's soul). Knowing all of this, Finney declares,

"But for sinners to be forensically pronounced just, is impossible and absurd...As we shall see, there are many conditions, while there is but one ground, of the justification of sinners...As has already been said, there can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law. This is of course denied by those who hold that gospel justification, or the justification of penitent sinners, is of the nature of a forensic or judicial justification. They hold to the legal maxim that what a man does by another he does by himself, and therefore the law regards Christ's obedience as ours, on the ground that he obeyed for us."

To this, Finney replies:

"The doctrine of an imputed righteousness, or that Christ's obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption.' After all, Christ's righteousness 'could do no more than justify himself. It can never be imputed to us...It was naturally impossible, then, for him to obey in our behalf.' This 'representing of the atonement as the ground of the sinner's justification has been a sad occasion of stumbling to many' "(pp. 320-322).

The view that faith is the sole condition of justification is 'the antinomian view,' Finney asserts. 'We shall see that perseverance in obedience to the end of life is also a condition of justification.' Furthermore, 'present sanctification, in the sense of present full consecration to God, is another condition...of justification. Some theologians have made justification a condition of sanctification, instead of making sanctification a condition of justification. But this we shall see is an erroneous view of the subject' (pp. 326-327). Each act of sin requires 'a fresh justification' (p. 331). Referring to 'the framers of the Westminster Confession of faith,' and their view of an imputed righteousness, Finney wonders, 'If this is not antinomianism, I know not what is' (p. 332). This legal business is unreasonable to Finney, so he concludes, 'I regard these dogmas as fabulous, and better befitting a romance than a system of theology' (p. 333). He concludes in this section against the Westminster Assembly:

"The relations of the old school view of justification to their view of depravity is obvious. They hold, as we have seen, that the constitution in every faculty and part is sinful. Of course, a return to personal, present holiness, in the sense of entire conformity to the law, cannot with them be a condition of justification. They must have a justification while yet at least in some degree of sin. This must be brought about by imputed righteousness. The intellect revolts at a justification in sin. So a scheme is devised to divert the eye of the law and of the lawgiver from the sinner to his substitute, who has perfectly obeyed the law" (p. 339).

This he calls 'another gospel.' Insisting that Paul's rather realistic account of the Christian life in Romans 7 actually refers to the apostle's life before he had experienced 'entire sanctification,' Finney surpasses Wesley in arguing for the possibility of complete holiness in this life. John Wesley maintained that it is possible for a believer to attain full sanctification, but when he recognized that even the holiest Christians sin, he accommodated his theology to this simple empirical fact. He did this by saying that this experience of 'Christian perfection' was a matter of the heart, not of actions. In other words, a Christian may be perfected in love, so that love is now the sole motivation for one's actions, while occasionally making mistakes. Finney rejects this view and insists that justification is conditioned on complete and total perfection--that is, 'conformity to the law of God entire,' and not only is the believer capable of this; when he or she transgresses at any point, a fresh justification is required.

As the Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield pointed out so eloquently, there are two religions throughout history: Heathenism--of which Pelagianism is a religious expression--and supernatural redemption. And with Warfield and those who so seriously warned their brothers and sisters of these errors among Finney and his successors, we too must come to terms with the wildly heterodox strain in American Protestantism. With roots in Finney's revivalism, perhaps evangelical and liberal Protestantism are not that far apart after all. His 'New Measures,' like today's church growth movement, made human choices and emotions the center of the church's ministry, ridiculed theology, and replaced the preaching of Christ with the preaching of conversion.

It is upon Finney's naturalistic moralism that the Christian political and social crusades build their faith in humanity and its resources in self-salvation. Sounding not a little like a deist, Finney declared, 'There is nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature. It consists entirely in the right exercise of the powers of nature. It is just that, and nothing else. When mankind becomes truly religious, they are not enabled to put forth exertions which they were unable before to put forth. They only exert powers which they had before, in a different way, and use them for the glory of God' (emphasis in original). Thus, as the new birth is a natural phenomenon, so too a revival: 'A revival is not a miracle, nor dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means--as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means.' The belief that the new birth and revival depend necessarily on divine activity is pernicious. 'No doctrine,' he says, 'is more dangerous than this to the prosperity of the Church, and nothing more absurd' (Revivals of Religion [Revell], pp. 4-5). When the leaders of the church growth movement claim that theology gets in the way of growth and insist that it does not matter what a particular church believes: growth is a matter of following the proper principles, they are displaying their debt to Finney. When leaders of the Vineyard movement praise this sub-Christian enterprise and the barking, roaring, screaming, laughing, and other strange phenomena on the basis that 'it works' and one must judge its truth by its fruit, they are following Finney, as well as the father of American pragmatism, William James, who declared that truth must be judged on the basis of 'its cash-value in experiential terms.'

Thus, in Finney's theology, God is not sovereign; man is not a sinner by nature; the atonement is not a true payment for sin; justification by imputation is insulting to reason and morality; the new birth is simply the effect of successful techniques, and revival is a natural result of clever campaigns. In his fresh introduction to the bicentennial edition of Finney's Systematic Theology, Harry Conn commends Finney's pragmatism: 'Many servants of our Lord should be diligently searching for a gospel that 'works,' and I am happy to state they can find it in this volume.' As Whitney R. Cross has carefully documented in The Burned-Over District: The Social and Intellectual History of Enthusiastic Religion in Western New York, 1800-1850 (Cornell University Press, 1950), the stretch of territory in which Finney's revivals were most frequent was also the cradle of the perfectionistic cults that plagued that century. A gospel that 'works' for zealous perfectionists one moment merely creates tomorrow's disillusioned and spent super-saints.

Needless to say, Finney's message is radically different from the evangelical faith, as is the basic orientation of the movements we see around us today the bear his imprint: revivalism (or its modern label, 'the church growth movement'), Pentecostal perfectionism and emotionalism, political triumphalism based on the ideal of 'Christian America,' and the anti-intellectual, anti-doctrinal tendencies of American evangelicalism and fundamentalism. It was through the 'Higher Life Movement' of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that Finney's perfectionism came to dominate the fledgling Dispensationalist movement through the auspices of Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Seminary and author of He That Is Spiritual. Finney, of course, is not solely responsible; he is more a product than a producer. Nevertheless, the influence he exercised and continues to exercise to this day is pervasive.

Not only did the revivalist abandon the material principle of the Reformation (justification), making him a renegade against evangelical Christianity; he repudiated doctrines, such as original sin and the substitutionary atonement, that have been embraced by Roman Catholics and Protestants alike. Therefore, Finney is not merely an Arminian, but a Pelagian. He is not only an enemy of evangelical Protestantism, but of historic Christianity of the broadest sort.

I do not point these things out with relish, as if to cheerfully denounce the heroes of American evangelicals. Nevertheless, it is always best, when one has lost something valuable, to retrace one's steps in order to determine when and where one last had it in his or her possession. That is the purpose of this exercise, to face with some honesty the serious departure from biblical Christianity that occurred through American revivalism. For until we address this shift, we will perpetuate a distorted and dangerous course. Of one thing Finney was absolutely correct: The Gospel held by the Westminster divines whom he attacked directly, and indeed held by the whole company of evangelicals, is 'another gospel' in distinction from the one proclaimed by Charles Finney. The question of our moment is, With which gospel will we side?

Unless otherwise specified, all quotes are from Charles G. Finney, Finney's Systematic Theology (Bethany, 1976).

Author

Dr. Michael Horton is the vice chairman of the Council of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, and is associate professor of historical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in California. Dr. Horton is a graduate of Biola University (B.A.), Westminster Theological Seminary in California (M.A.R.) and Wycliffe Hall, Oxford (Ph.D.). Some of the books he has written or edited include Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, Beyond Culture Wars, Power Religion, In the Face of God, and most recently, We Believe.

Recommended Sermon

The Wedding Garment (pdf)

by C. H. Spurgeon

More On Decisional Regeneration

Video by Mark Kielar, the founder of CrossTV and creator of the Word Pictures series. Additionally, he hosts many of the Word Pictures programs. CrossTV, a religious programming company produces the Word Pictures series, a collection of over 40 videos addressing Biblical and Christian concepts, theology and issues. He is currently serving as pastor / teaching elder at First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach, Florida.

Link to "Decisional Regeneration" video here.

'Decisions For Christ' - The Measure of Success?
by Jim Bublitz of Old Truth

Trophies for "decisions" are imaginative to say the least, but they would be iconic of the popular mindset in evangelism. Churches and ministries today are doing outreach differently than in the past, and they are looking for validation of their new techniques. Decision-counts have become the standard unit of measure for quantifying God's blessing on: evangelism techniques, leadership methods, and sermon content. In this posting, we'll explore the claims, concept, and counting of "decisions for Christ".

Within a few days of the annual Christmas musicals this last year, church-blogs everywhere began to light-up with claims of success. So often however, I noticed that "success" was being defined mathematically; here's an example of one church who reported 72 decisions for Christ that night. But it's not just a Christmas phenomenon; these conversion-reports are wide-spread in evangelicalism today. Here are some more examples:

• A pastor of one seeker sensitive church claimed 1,879 decisions in a single year. Being enamored with these 'results', he declared: "There have not been in all of church history that many churchesthat have touched as many lives", unquote.
• Another pastor preached a sermon on "Your Best Life Now" (apparently based on Joel Osteen's book), and said afterwards - this produced many decisions for Christ.
• One pragmatic pastor who offers input on my blog occasionally, insists that all of this represents a great modern revival. Here are some more examples:
• A basketball ministry that claims 6,000 decisions in one year.
• There's a Superbowl outreach that produced 1,200 decisions.
• A movie that led to 2,300 decisions in one weekend.
• The Power Team even makes conversion predictions ahead of time.

The most dramatic example I've seen, is the account of one man, who was said to have influenced over one million decisions for Christ in his lifetime. That's Bill Bright. And we are told that a movie that he created lead to more than 200 million decisions.

Let's bring an historical element into this discussion. I'm amazed at how long some of history's greatest missionaries waited before seeing their very first convert. Why didn't they quit in discouragement, and how many of today's pragmatic pastors would have been willing to wait this long?:

• William Carey was in India for seven years before he baptized his first convert.
• David Livingstone served eight years in Africa before seeing anyone converted.
• Adoniram Judson in Burma, six years.
• Hudson Taylor in China, waited ten years!

Now with that bit of information from church history in mind, consider some of these claims:

• A group of students on one recent missionary excursion in Buenos Aires claimed 1,477 decisions in a single day.
• Another missionary trip saw thousands of decisions for Christ in a single week.

How can we explain the fact that a group of students ended up being radically more effective in initial outreach than the most well-known missionaries in church history? Were the missionaries of the past simply not smart enough to come up with innovative and culturally relevant outreach techniques? Could it be that there is really some massive revival going on today, that wasn't going on during the greatest century of missions? The more likely explanation is that Christian ministers of past centuries looked at lasting conversions, where as today - the short-sighted focus is on counting immediate "decisions".

Going back in church history, we see a more discerning attitude, that resisted making immediate conversion claims. George Whitefield, who was a leader in the 18th century Great Awakening, made it a practice to delay judgment until months or years down the road. Whitefield's reasoning for this was, you simply can't know right away. He said:

There are so many stony ground hearers, who receive the Word with joy, that I have determined to suspend my judgment till I know the tree by its fruits. I cannot believe they are converts till I see fruit brought back; it will never do a sincere soul any harm".

A century later, Charles Spurgeon was also very outspoken against potentially boastful and self-validating conversion claims, saying:

"Do not, therefore, consider that soul-winning is or can be secured by the multiplication of baptisms, and the swelling of the size of your church. What mean these dispatches from the battle-field? "Last night, 14 souls were under conviction, 15 were justified, and 8 received full sanctification". I am weary of this public bragging, this counting of unhatched chickens, this exhibition of doubtful spoils. Lay aside such numberings of the people, such idle pretence of certifying in half a minute that which will need the testing of a lifetime". [read more]

He had the same common-sense that Whitefield had a century earlier. It's a common-sense that seems to be very much lacking today:

"It very often happens that the converts that are born in excitement die when the excitement is over". [Continue reading ...]

What's Going On?

The following is an excerpt of an article written by Timmy Brister at his site, Provocations & Pantings. I think his analysis regarding church culture and false conversions is accurate and telling. It serves as an indictment of modern church practices. In my opinion, this is THE issue of our generation: proclaiming the True Gospel and recovering the lost doctrine of True Regeneration. Even within the Southern Baptist Convention, the battle will be (already is) fierce.

We have seen contemporary evangelicalism produce everything under the sun in Jesus’ name, and yet we are living in a post-Christian culture. I am convinced that what our society has experienced has not been true Christianity, although there are exceptions. Indeed, I believe it can be argued that our post-Christian culture is really a post-false conversion culture that has rejected the substandard approaches to being followers of Jesus. When conversion is reduced to praying a prayer, walking down an aisle, squeezing my hand, or getting little children to assent to “accept Jesus into their hearts,” you will engender generational nominalism fostered by a truncated gospel that is followed through with unbiblical responses.

We are consistently hearing of new discipleship methods that are attempting to promote growth only to wear out in a short period of time. Churches are actively engaging in the culture war against postmodernism and the growing divide between the American way and the Christian way as evangelicals seem to play a smaller and smaller role in shaping the world around us.

What’s going on? Are our strategies and methods just not effective? Do we need to just do more “revivals” and get people excited about Jesus? The answer to the ethical question is not found in the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and Richard Land. The answer is found in the gospel and Jesus Christ. The answer to the evangelism decline is not revivalism and Billy Graham. The answer is found in the gospel and Jesus Christ.

Simply put, the situation we are in today is fundamentally due to our loss of the gospel and failure to understand what constitutes genuine conversion. The problem is not discipleship, evangelism, or morality; the problem is what we have made of conversion. You cannot expect a sinner to pursue holiness if they do not have the Holy Spirit indwelling them. You cannot expect a sinner to be evangelistic if they have not first rightly responded to the evangel. You cannot expect there to be growth where there is no life. And when we point the finger at unconverted people in our pews complaining of a lack of obedience, we are no different than admonishing a dead man for not having picked himself up from his bootstraps.

We can miss biblical conversion in any number of ways. If a person is converted only in the mind, he will substitute repentance and faith with mental assent and assume that the mere acquisition of more knowledge (intellectualism) will guarantee salvation. They will profess, “Lord, Lord” with great profundity for sure. If a person is converted only in the heart, he will substitute repentance and faith with emotional experience (experientialism) and assume that more mountaintop experiences (or rededications) will guarantee salvation (by “nailing it down”). They will profess, “Lord, Lord” with great passion no doubt. If a person is converted only in the will, he will substitute repentance and faith with determination and resolve to do better (legalism) and assume that self-improvement (self-righteousness) brings him acceptance before God. They will profess, “Lord, Lord” with great persistence as you could expect.

Contrary to all this, a truly converted sinner will be transformed by the Spirit of God with a change evidenced by turning from sin (repentance) and turning to God (faith) which encompasses their entire being–mind, heart, and will. In recent years, we have all but taken God out of the equation so that conversion is not the miraculous working of God but a mere decision by man. Now, certainly one has to “decide” and respond in faith and repentance, but if there is not a true understanding of the gospel and a true gracious working of regeneration in the heart of a sinner, then no trick, technique, or trend will be able to accomplish what God has determined Himself to do. Conversion is not merely “our part” or something we contribute in salvation apart from God’s sovereign work of effectually drawing and applying the new covenant promise of transforming our lives from within. Everyone to whom God begins the “good work” will bring it completion (Phil. 1:6), and there should be distinguishing marks of the saving, sanctifying, and persevering grace of God in the converted sinner being daily conformed into the image of Christ.

We are living in a post-Christian culture who has looked at a version of Christian to a large degree comprised of falsely converted people and said, “If that’s what Christianity is about, then what’s the difference? Why would I want that?” They have seen the intellectual Christians (mind only), the mystical Christian (heart only), and the moral Christians (will only), but many not seen the Spirit-ual Christians–those marked, indwelt, and changed by the Spirit of God. Trinitarianly speaking, if you do not have the Spirit you do not have life (John 6:63); if you do not have the Son of God, you do not have the life (1 John 5:11-12); if you do not know the only true God, you do not have eternal life (John 17:3). The converting work of a sinner from death to life is a miracle wrought by our Triune God, graciously opening our eyes to see and our ears to hear and giving us a heart to follow and obey.

If we are to innovative and engaging in a post-Christian world, our first step is to revisit what it means to be–and more specifically how one becomes–a Christian. We do not need another evangelism strategy or to be trendy and talk about sex for 60 straight days. What we need is for the day of programming false conversions and perpetuating false assurances to come to an end. Those words of Jesus need to haunt us until we are awakened to the reality that missing it here means missing it for an eternity. Let us create a culture where we are regularly examining ourselves to see whether we are in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5), working out our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12-13), diligent to make our calling and election sure (2 Pet. 1:10). I am persuaded that what we do “in Jesus’ name” will then flow out of who we truly are as a result of Jesus’ transforming grace in lives that marked by repentance and faith. (Read entire article here.)

Another Gospel by A. W. Pink

Those who are trusting to an outward form of godliness, such as baptism or "confirmation!"; those who are religious because it is considered a mark of respectability; those who attend some Church or Chapel because it is the fashion to do so; and, those who unite with some Denomination because they suppose that such a step will enable them to become Christians, are in the way which "ends in death"—death spiritual and eternal. However pure our motives, however noble our intentions, however well-meaning our purposes, however sincere our endeavors, God will not acknowledge us as His sons, until we accept His Son.

A yet more specious form of Satan's gospel is to move preachers to present the atoning sacrifice of Christ and then tell their hearers that all God requires from them is to "believe" in His Son. Thereby thousands of impenitent souls are deluded into thinking they have been saved. But Christ said, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3). To "repent" is to hate sin, to sorrow over it, to turn from it. It is the result of the Spirit's making the heart contrite before God. None except a broken heart can savingly believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Again, thousands are deceived into supposing that they have "accepted Christ" as their "personal Saviour," who have not first received Him as their LORD. The Son of God did not come here to save His people in their sin, but "from their sins" (Matt 1:21). To be saved from sins, is to be saved from ignoring and despising the authority of God, it is to abandon the course of self-will and self-pleasing, it is to "forsake our way (Isa 55:7). It is to surrender to God's authority, to yield to His dominion, to give ourselves over to be ruled by Him. The one has never taken Christ's "yoke" upon him, who is not truly and diligently seeking to please Him in all the details of life, and yet supposes that he is resting on the Finished Work of Christ" is deluded by the Devil.

In the seventh chapter of Matthew there are two scriptures which give us approximate results of Christ's Gospel and Satan's counterfeit. First, in verses 13-14, "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Second; in verses 22-23, "Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied [preached] in Thy name? and in Thy name cast out demons, and in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from Me, ye that work iniquity" Yes, my reader, it is possible to work in the name of Christ, and even to preach in his name, and though the world knows us, the Church knows us, yet to be unknown to the Lord! How necessary is it then to find out where we really are; to examine ourselves and see whether we be in the faith; to measure ourselves by the Word of God and see if we are being deceived by our subtle Enemy; to find out whether we are building our house upon the sand, or whether it is errected on the Rock which is Jesus Christ. May the Holy Spirit search our hearts, break our wills, slay our emnity against God, work in us a deep and true repentance, and direct our gaze to the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. (Exerpt from Another Gospel by A. W. Pink)

Click here to read the entire article.

Foolishness of Preaching vs. Preaching of Foolishness

We have arrived at a point when churches are constantly pushing the envelope for exciting and entertaining services in order to make sure the attendees do not become bored with just preaching. We are an entertainment driven society and many pastors are pulling out all of the stops so that they will appear to be relevant and hip. For the remainder of this post I will contrast the difference between the foolishness of preaching spoken of in Scipture and the contemporary method of preaching foolishly.

Cultural Preference: The Preaching of Foolishness

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2Tim.3:3-4, ESV)

Apparently Paul was telling Timothy about our culture. Below are some examples of pastors trying to be relevant to seekers. (What they are seeking could be debated for some time.) Below are some actual news stories:

Church service ends on crash-A Kokomo pastor is recovering after crashing a motorcycle during a Sunday church service.

Pastor fined forshooting arrow- A pastor and parishioner have been cited by police for shooting an arrow during a church service in Sheboygan Falls.

Pastor's Sex Challenge For Congregation- The pastor of a Dallas-area mega-church challenged married congregants during his sermon Sunday to have sex for seven days in a row -- and says he's practicing what he preaches.

Godly or gimmick? Churches offer free gas- Carol Umsted got more than the word of God during services this summer at the Congregational United Church of Christ of Valley City. She also got $50 worth of free gas, thanks to winning a raffle...

Woman wins house by attending church on New Year's Eve- The chance to win a new $120,000 home wasn't the reason Tammy Woods attended her church's New Year's Eve service.

ENOUGH, Enough, enough! Please!

A. W. Tozer wrote of The Great God Entertainment in his book Root of the Righteous (Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications, 1955, p. 32-33). Here is an excerpt:

"A German philosopher many years ago said something to the effect that the more a man has in his own heart, the less he will require from the outside; excessive need for support from without is proof of the bankruptcy of the inner man.

Schleiermacher held that the feeling of dependence lies at the root of all religious worship, and that however high the spiritual life might rise, it must always begin with a deep sense of a great need which only God could satisfy.

If this sense of need and a feeling of dependence are at the root of natural religion, it is not hard to see why the great god Entertainment is so ardently worshiped by so many." (Continue reading here.)

HT: Slice of Laodicea

This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:8-9, ESV)

Biblical Precedent: The Foolishness of Preaching

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. (1Cor. 1:21, KJV)

In the Founders Journal, Fred A. Malone wrote an article titled, Is Preaching Foolish Today?, where he stated the following:

"It takes little Bible study to see that preaching, the proclamation of God’s Word, was God’s chosen method for evangelism and edification by the Old Testament prophets, our Lord and His apostles. The question is: “Is preaching foolish today?” Should we follow the example of the prophets, our Lord and His apostles? Is it necessary to obey Paul’s command to Timothy: “PREACH the word!”

In the Bible, preaching is the proclamation (heralding) and explanation of God’s revealed Word to man. It is an outward call to all men to “be still, and know that I am God.” It is a call to be still and listen to God’s revelation to man; to quit dwelling on our own thoughts and start thinking about God’s truth. It is God’s chosen way and authoritative charge to reveal, herald, His truth to mankind (2 Timothy 4:1–2).

The New Testament provides many examples of proclaiming God’s Word. These include the Sermon on the Mount, Peter’s message at Pentecost, Paul on Mar’s Hill and the Epistles read in their entirely to the attentive and listening churches (Colossians 4:16). This act of “proclaiming” is different from activities such as personal witnessing and interactive teaching, which the apostles did as well. Preaching is not about equal interaction between the speaker and the hearer. It is about being still and listening to God’s proclaimed truth which is wiser than man’s thoughts.

Do you believe preaching is the God-ordained means to bring sinners to bow before Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? Do you believe preaching is the God-ordained means to edify and strengthen the faith of God’s people as they gather for congregational worship? I would venture to say that most Baptist preachers would give a hearty “Amen” to these questions. However, all is not well in our Baptist Zion.

The Regulative Principle and Preaching

Preaching is often regarded as “foolish” today. It is being set aside in many churches in favor of more culturally “relevant” methods to evangelize the lost and edify the saints. Many consider plays, athletic displays, panel discussions, musical extravaganzas, movies, multi-media presentations, clowns, puppets and sacred dance as “more relevant” to our media generation than a “long and boring” sermon from the Bible heralded by one man speaking to men. Yet, with his last words, Paul commanded, charged, Timothy: “Preach the Word!” He did not call him to adapt this method of proclamation to the entertainment methods of his own contemporary culture. In Paul’s day Greek plays, athletic contests, magic shows, circus acts, give-and-take debates were all popular forms of entertainment. Yet Paul did not encourage churches to wed the gospel to such forms for the sake of evangelism or relevance. No! Paul held to preaching, the proclamation of God’s Word to men—to the very end of his life—no matter the culture, Jew or Gentile.

He commanded Timothy to “Preach the Word”, to herald the revelation of God to men, no matter what the hearers think or desire:

'Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry (2 Timothy 4:2–5).'

Even in a first-century A. D. culture of sports, drama, philosophical debate and inductive educational discussion, Paul steadfastly observed “the regulative principle” of Scripture. That is, he practiced what God had commanded and regulated by revelation to him: preaching God’s Word! Our Lord commanded Paul to preach and Paul commanded Timothy to stay with God’s method no matter what the hearer thinks." (Continue reading here.)

For more on the regulative principle: here, here, here, and here.

Be careful, the foolishness of preaching will likely be costly....

Christian preachers face arrest in Birmingham- A police community support officer ordered two Christian preachers to stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham (U.K.).

Evangelist preaching sparks student outcry- Two non-denominational Christian preachers calling for the repentance of gays attracted attention from hundreds of students on Tuesday, many of whom protested their presence.

Mob Brutally Attacks Missionaries- A large mob of anti-Christian extremists brutally attacked two Gospel for Asia-supported missionaries in Himachal Pradesh, India, on Saturday, March 14. After stripping them naked and beating Murari Jay and Atul Rajesh, the vicious group burned all their belongings and then had the missionaries arrested.

These are just a few examples of outrage that can be caused by the foolishness of biblical preaching. Also, I want you to be aware that there are many biblical preachers proclaiming the Truth of the gospel every day. Many of their sermons are available in mp3 formats for you to download and listen at your convenience. See the links on this page for solid biblical teaching. Be careful, though. If you have been attending a circus church, the Truth may be hard to digest, but it will be worth the effort.

Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. (John 15:20, ESV)