Evangelicals and the Will

By Phil Newton

Few subjects aspire controversy as much as that of the human will. Christians and non-Christians can be found debating the various opinions on the limitations and liberty of the will. Some consider the issue of the will of such importance that they have adjusted their entire theology of God to fit into the framework of their theology of the will (e.g., Clark Pinnock, John Sanders with their view of "Freewill Theism"). Others have refused to acknowledge the revelation of Scripture concerning God's character in light of their considerations regarding the will (e.g., typified by the "Calvinism v. Arminianism debates").

Even evangelicals differ on views of the will. Perhaps no figure has influenced modern evangelicals thinking on the subject of the will as much as the 19th century revivalist, Charles Grandison Finney. His methodologies for evangelism and so-called "revivals" continue today, though they began in great controversy. What did Finney believe concerning the will and other essentials of the faith? As we have noted many times, one's methods and practices are simply an overflow of what a person believes.

In Finney's own Lectures on Systematic Theology, he offers a summary of what he believes on the subject of justification. "The doctrine of a literal imputation of Adam's sin to all his posterity, of the literal imputation of all the sins of the elect to Christ, and of his suffering for them the exact amount due to the transgressors, of the literal imputation of Christ's righteousness or obedience to the elect, and the consequent perpetual justification of all that are converted from the first exercise of faith, whatever their subsequent life may be-I say I regard these dogmas [doctrines] as fabulous [i.e., as fables], and better befitting a romance than a system of theology" [page 397].

If I had stopped before his closing comment, we would all have cheered his stance upon basic Christian beliefs. But his regarding these doctrines as "fabulous...befitting a romance," strikes at the heart of evangelical theology. Consider Romans 3-5 that clearly rebuts Finney's theology, as Paul sets forth the imputation of Adam's sin at the Fall upon his posterity and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ for the elect. Finney denies that man's nature is bent upon sin or in bondage to sin (cf. Rom. 3:1-20). He states, "The fact is, there is either no sin, or there is voluntary sin" [pp. 122-123]. By this he implies that all sin and all holiness is voluntary; one's nature has nothing to do with it. This totally denies the necessity of regeneration prior to faith and insists that man is good (cf. Eph. 2:1-10; James 1:17-18). It also defies the clear biblical description of the unregenerate man (cf. I Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:11-12; 4:17-19; Col. 1:21-22; Titus 3:3-5). Finney therefore believed that all that was necessary for conversion to take place was to persuade a person's will to surrender.  Rather than justification taking place by faith through the work of Christ, the person in question must rid himself of all sin. Finney wrote, "That he cannot be justified by the law, while there is a particle of sin in him, is too plain to need proof. But can he be pardoned and accepted, and then justified, in the gospel sense, while sin, any degree of sin, remains in him? Certainly not" [p. 121].

From this we find Finney developing ultimately his doctrine of sinless perfection: "If what has been said is true, we see that the church has fallen into a great and ruinous mistake, in supposing that a state of present sinlessness is very rare, if not an impossible, attainment in this life. If the doctrine of this lecture be true, it follows that the very beginning of true religion in the soul, implies the renunciation of all sin. Sin ceases where holiness begins" [p. 123]. He further expresses a belief in a Christian losing his salvation: "Whenever a Christian sins he comes under condemnation, and must repent and do his first works, or be lost" [p. 124]. Finney explains, "It certainly cannot be true, that God accepts and justifies a sinner in his sins," a position that flies directly opposite that of Martin Luther as he stood before the works-oriented justification of the Roman Catholic Church [p. 392].

At the heart of Finney's defective views on justification is his view of the will. He explained that to claim the necessity of a work of grace by the Holy Spirit prior to conversion would imply that man is "incapable of moral action and of course can sin no more" [p. 344]. His logic defies the teaching of Scripture again and again. Should evangelicals follow Finney? NO!

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by South Woods Baptist Church.

Please include the following statement on any distributed copy:

Copyright South Woods Baptist Church. Website: www.southwoodsbc.org. Used by permission as granted on web site. Questions, comments, and suggestions about our site can be sent here.