Answering Objections to Inborn Depravity by Charles Finney
This quotation, together with the whole argument, shows that he considers moral depravity to be an attribute of human nature, in the same sense that the appetites and passions are. Before I proceed directly to the examination of his argument, that sinfulness, or moral depravity, is an “attribute of human nature,” I would premise, that an argument, or fact, that may equally well consist with either of two opposing theories, can prove neither. The author in question presents the following facts and considerations in support of his great position, that moral depravity, or sinfulness, is an attribute of human nature; and three presidents of colleges indorse the soundness and conclusiveness of the argument.
He proves his position first from the “universality of moral depravity.” To this I answer, that this argument proves nothing to the purpose, unless it be true, and assumed as a major premise, that whatever is universal among mankind, must be a natural attribute of man as such; that whatever is common to all men, must be an attribute of human nature. But this assumption is a begging of the question. Sin may be the result of temptation; temptation may be universal, and of such a nature as uniformly, not necessarily, to result in sin, unless a contrary result be secured by a Divine moral suasion. This I shall endeavor to show is the fact. This argument assumes, that there is but one method of accounting for the universality of human sinfulness. But this is the question in debate, and is not to be thus assumed as true.
Again: Selfishness is common to all unregenerate men. Is selfishness a natural attribute? We have seen, in a former lecture, that it consists in choice. Can choice be an attribute of human nature?
Again: This argument is just as consistent with the opposite theory, to wit, that moral depravity is selfishness. The universality of selfishness is just what might be expected, if selfishness consists in the committal of the will to the gratification of self. This will be a thing of course, unless the Holy Spirit interpose, greatly to enlighten the intellect, and break up the force of habit, and change the attitude of the will, already, at the first dawn of reason, committed to the impulses of the sensibility. If moral depravity is to be accounted for, as I shall hereafter more fully show, by ascribing it to the influence of temptation, or to a physically depraved constitution, surrounded by the circumstances in which mankind first form their moral character, or put forth their first moral choices, universality might of course be expected to be one of its characteristics. This argument, then, agreeing equally well with either theory, proves neither.
His second argument is, that “Moral depravity develops itself in early life.” Answer: This is just what might be expected upon the opposite theory. If moral depravity consist in the choice of self-gratification, it would of course appear in early life. So this argument agrees quite as well with the opposing theory, and therefore proves nothing. But this argument is good for nothing, unless the following be assumed as a major premise, and unless the fact assumed be indeed a truth, namely, “Whatever is developed in early life, must be an attribute of human nature.” But this again is assuming the truth of the point in debate. This argument is based upon the assumption that a course of action common to all men, and commencing at the earliest moment of their moral agency, can be accounted for only by ascribing it to an attribute of nature, having the same moral character as that which belongs to the actions themselves. But this is not true. There may be more than one way of accounting for the universal sinfulness of human actions from the dawn of moral agency. It may be ascribed to the universality and peculiar nature of temptation, as has been said.
His third argument is, that “Moral depravity is not owing to any change that occurs subsequent to birth.”
Answer: No, the circumstances of temptation are sufficient to account for it without supposing the nature to be changed. This argument proves nothing, unless it be true, that the peculiar circumstances of temptation under which moral agents act, from the dawn of moral agency, cannot sufficiently account for their conduct, without supposing a change of nature subsequent to birth. What then, does this arguing prove?
Again, this argument is just as consistent with the opposing theory, and therefore proves neither.
His fourth argument is, “That moral depravity acts freely and spontaneously.”
Answer: “The moral agent acts freely, and acts selfishly, that is, wickedly. This argument assumes, that if a moral agent acts freely and wickedly moral depravity, or sin, must be an attribute of his nature. Or more fairly, if mankind universally, in the exercise of their liberty, act sinfully, sinfulness must be an attribute of human nature.” But what is sin? Why sin is a voluntary transgression of law, Dr. Woods being judge. Can a voluntary transgression of law be denominated an attribute of human nature? But again, this argument alleges nothing but what is equally consistent with the opposite theory. If moral depravity consist in the choice of self-gratification as an end, it would of course freely and spontaneously manifest itself. This argument then, is good for nothing.
His fifth argument is, “That moral depravity is hard to overcome, and therefore it must be an attribute of human nature.”
Answer: If it were an attribute of human nature, it could not be overcome at all, without a change of the human constitution. It is hard to overcome, just as selfishness naturally would be, in beings of a physically depraved constitution, and in the presence of so many temptations to self-indulgence. If it were an attribute of human nature, it could not be overcome without a change of personal identity. But the fact that it can be overcome without destroying the consciousness of personal identity, proves that it is not an attribute of human nature.
My Mama
My sweet mama has cancer. That is hard enough to write. The Lord knows how much tears I have shed the last couple of days as we have learned that my mother’s body is eaten up with cancer. I hate cancer. I hate the fall of mankind. I hate sin. I hate Satan. I long for the day when Jesus makes all things new (Revelation 21:5). I long for the day when all of creation is liberated from the penalty of sin forevermore (Romans 8:22-23). I long for the day when disciples of Jesus are forever in our new bodies that will be free from the sinful corruption of cancer, AIDS, and all other vile diseases that ravage our bodies and kill us (2 Corinthians 5:1-10).
I understand that death is not the end. I know that it’s just one step into eternity and it’s a step that all of us will take unless Jesus comes beforehand. All of us will die. My mama. Myself. You reading this post. We all will die. None of us can escape it. But thanks be to God that He gave His Son to deliver us from the fear of death (Hebrews 2:14-15). One of my favorite passages of Scripture is Philippians 1:20-21 where Paul wrote,
As it is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
What a view of life and death. All to the glory of God!
I also know from 1 Thessalonians 4:13 that we don’t grieve as the world grieves because we actually have a hope in Christ. The world doesn’t. For the lost, death is it. Death means it’s completely over. They mourn their dead and cry and weep and declare them in heaven. But for the true disciple of Jesus who dies, the Church grieves but we have a hope in the Lord. We know that death is not the end but only a step into eternity with Jesus Christ for to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (Philippians 1:23; cf. 2 Corinthians 5:8). For the disciple, death has lost its sting (1 Corinthians 15:55).
I don’t want to lose my mama. I confess that. I ask you to pray for me and my family and ask God for His will and His glory in all this.
Moral Depravity Not Inborn by Charles Finney
Let us consider the proper method of accounting for the universal and total moral depravity of the unregenerate moral agents of our race. In the discussion of this subject, I will:
1. Endeavor to show how it is not to be accounted for.
In examining this part of the subject, it is necessary to have distinctly in view that which constitutes moral depravity. All the error that has existed upon this subject, has been founded in false assumptions in regard to the nature or essence of moral depravity. It has been almost universally true, that no distinction has been made between moral and physical depravity; and consequently, physical depravity has been confounded with and treated of, as moral depravity. This of course has led to vast confusion and nonsense upon this subject. Let the following fact, which has been shown in former lectures, be distinctly borne in mind.
That moral depravity consists in selfishness, or in the choice of self-interest, self- gratification, or self-indulgence, as an end. Consequently it cannot consist,
(1.) In a sinful constitution, or in a constitutional appetency or craving for sin. This has been shown in a former lecture, on what is not implied in disobedience to the moral law.
(2.) Moral depravity is sin itself and not the cause of sin. It is not something prior to sin, that sustains to it the relation of a cause, but it is the essence and the whole of sin.
(3.) It cannot be an attribute of human nature, considered simply as such, for this would be physical, and not moral depravity.
(4.) Moral depravity is not then to be accounted for by ascribing it to a nature or constitution sinful in itself. To talk of a sinful nature, or sinful constitution, in the sense of physical sinfulness, is to ascribe sinfulness to the Creator, who is the author of nature. It is to overlook the essential nature of sin, and to make sin a physical virus, instead of a voluntary and responsible choice. Both sound philosophy and the Bible, make sin to consist in obeying the flesh, or in the spirit of self-pleasing, or self-indulgence, or, which is the same thing, in selfishness in a carnal mind, or in minding the flesh. But writers on moral depravity have assumed, that moral depravity was distinct from, and the cause of sin, that is, of actual transgression. They call it original sin, indwelling sin, a sinful nature, an appetite for sin, an attribute of human nature, and the like. We shall presently see what has led to this view of the subject.
I will, in the next place, notice a modern, and perhaps the most popular view of this subject, which has been taken by any late writer, who has fallen into the error of confounding physical and moral depravity. I refer to the prize essay of Dr. Woods, of Andover, Mass. He defines moral depravity to be the same as “sinfulness.” He also, in one part of his essay, holds and maintains, that it is always and necessarily, voluntary. Still, his great effort is to prove that sinfulness or moral depravity, is an attribute of human nature. It is no part of my design to expose the inconsistency of holding moral depravity to be a voluntary state of mind, and yet a natural attribute, but only to examine the philosophy, the logic, and theory of his main argument. The following quotation will show the sense in which he holds moral depravity to belong to the nature of man. At page 54 he says:
“The word depravity, relating as it here does to man’s moral character, means the same as sinfulness, being the opposite of moral purity, or holiness.” In this use of the word there is a general agreement. But what is the meaning of native, or natural? Among the variety of meanings specified by Johnson, Webster, and others, I refer to the following, as relating particularly to the subject before us.
Native. Produced by nature. Natural, or such as is according to nature; belonging by birth; original. Natural has substantially the same meaning: `produced by nature; not acquired.’ So Crabbe: `Of a person we say, his worth is native, to designate it as some valuable property born with him, not foreign to him, or ingrafted upon him; but we say of his disposition, that it is natural, as opposed to that which is acquired by habit.’ And Johnson defines nature to be `the native state or properties of any thing, by which it is discriminated from others.’ He quotes the definition of Boyle: `Nature sometimes means what belongs to a living creature at its nativity, or accrues to it by its birth, as when we say a man is noble by nature, or a child is naturally froward.’ `This,’ he says, `may be expressed by saying, the man was born so.’
“After these brief definitions, which come to nearly the same thing, I proceed to inquire, what are the marks or evidence which show anything in man to be natural, or native; and how far these marks are found in relation to depravity.”
Again, page 66, he says: “The evil, then, cannot be supposed to originate in any unfavorable external circumstances, such as corrupting examples, or insinuating and strong temptations; for if we suppose these entirely removed, all human beings would still be sinners. With such a moral nature as they now have, they would not wait for strong temptations to sin. Nay, they would be sinners in opposition to the strongest motives to the contrary. Indeed, we know that human beings will turn those very motives which most powerfully urge to holiness, into occasions of sin. Now, does not the confidence and certainty with which we foretell the commission of sin, and of sin unmixed with moral purity, presuppose a full conviction in us, and a conviction resting upon what we regard as satisfactory evidence, that sin, in all its visible actings, arises from that which is within the mind itself, and which belongs to our very nature as moral beings? Have we not as much evidence that this is the case with moral evil as with any of our natural affections or bodily appetites?”
Like this:
Charles Finney on Original Sin (Introduction)
Many want to place Charles Finney among Arminians. How often have I heard some Calvinists state that Finney was an Arminian and a poster board for Arminianism. Finney was not an Arminian. As far as I know, Finney never claimed Arminianism. Even a short reading of the works of Arminius in comparison to the works of Finney will show that he is not an Arminian in the sense of the teachings of Arminius. As I have pointed out before, Arminius affirms original sin. He holds to the same form of original sin as Calvinists do. Finney did not. Finney denied original sin.
The question I have often heard is whether Finney was a heretic. Many Calvinists believe he was and that he preached a false gospel. One Calvinist even did a video series attacking Charles Finney as a very dangerous heretic and a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Phil Johnson from Pyromaniacs believes that Finney was a heretic and a false teacher. I have read most of the works of Finney and if you have never read his book on the gospel, I would encourage you to read it and then ask yourself whether he was preaching another Jesus. You can find Finney’s book on the gospel here. I have read Finney’s books on prayer and on the Spirit and on the Lord Jesus and I fail to see how Finney is such an apostate. I don’t agree with Finney on all issues but I don’t feel that he is an outright heretic worthy of damnation.
I think a couple of thoughts are in order about Finney. First, Finney was converted while practicing law and this had a great effect upon his views of Scripture. For Finney, the moral government of God was supreme and the duty of humanity was to obey the divine law of God. Failure to obey God’s law brought about condemnation and required atonement for our sins. Finney viewed the entire work of Christ as fulfilling the sinner’s need for salvation because of our violation of the law of God. Finney believed that the free will was intact and that we are born free to either serve God or not serve God and he viewed 1 John 3:4 as true sinning.
Secondly, Finney was combating intellectual Calvinism that had taken root in New England during his time. The dryness Finney encountered after his conversion to Jesus Christ led him to deny Calvinism because he saw it as defeating true passion in the heart of the saint. Finney also witnessed the dry intellectual preaching of his day and he longed for passionate preaching of the Word of God. Finney fulfilled that. Thus Finney preached against the dry Calvinism of his day and the lack of conversions among the people living in New England who claimed to be Calvinists. It seems from reading Finney that almost all of the Calvinists he knew were not passionately living for the glory of God and set out to preach against them and to see people converted to Christ. In my estimation, Finney preached Jesus and salvation in Him through faith and apart from works (Romans 4:5). I don’t see evidence that Finney preached another Jesus.
Over the next few days I will be posting articles by Charles Finney on original sin. Again, Finney does not represent Arminianism but represents Moral Government Theology (MGT) as Winkie Pratney before him. MGT has its roots from some of Arminius’ teachings but not entirely and differs with Arminius mainly here in original sin.
The Murder of James Arminius’ Family
Few realize the struggle that Arminius faced to become the theologian that he became. I have been recently re-reading his Works on my Kindle and I am struck by the humility of the theologian who was later to be characterized as a semi-Pelagian and a heretic by the Synod of Dort’s rulings. I use to believe that Arminius would have surely turned the Synod of Dort at least toward understanding that his argument was not against Calvinism per se but that the Word of God should be the determinate of truth and not the catechisms. Now I believe that Arminius would have been killed had he lived to stand before the Synod of Dort. Calvinists view the Synod of Dort as a victory for Calvinism, a stand for the truth of the gospel but I view the Synod of Dort as a mockery and a kangaroo trial that was set from the beginning to rule against the Arminians (or Remonstrants) and declare their views as heretical and thus worthy of persecution which the Arminians would endure for many years after the Synod of Dort.
Before all of this, few realize that Arminius’ entire family was murdered by the Catholics in 1575. A little background is in order. Since the Reformation had launched under Martin Luther, countries in Europe were being divided by their loyalties. Some were siding with Rome and the Roman Catholic Church with their “counter-reformation” while others were following the Protestants and turning away from Rome. The Vatican was very influential in its dealing with the European governments and had shaped laws and policies for centuries until the Protestant Reformation. Now nations were appointing Protestant leaders and kings and bucking against Rome. Rome’s power was crumbling. Several nations such as France and Spain took the initiative to turn the tide through war by forcing the nations to convert back to Roman Catholicism.
In Holland William Orange had been a protector of the people. Orange, while officially a Roman Catholic, saw himself as a defender of freedom to allow people to be free to worship God as they deemed right. He believed that Rome had no right to wage war against the Protestants and he became sympathetic toward the Protestant cause. Orange’s forces were under constant attack from the pro-Vatican armies. The Spaniards in particular were waging war against William Orange and his mavericks.
Oudewater was Arminius’ hometown. Arminius himself was away studying at this time when on July 19, 1575 some 11,000 foot soldiers approached the now Protestant city. For several weeks the Catholic Hierges waited with his army outside of the city fearing that Orange was going to attack and fearing that the city would cut their dikes and flood the land as Orange had done in his defense of Leiden. Hierges sent messengers back and forth to the city of Oudewater calling for their surrender of the city. Oudewater, meanwhile, made preparations to defend the city. They also sent out a call for assistance to defeat Hierges.
On August 6, 1575 Hierges made preparations to attack. He sent a messenger with a white flag and called once again for the peaceful surrender of the city. The conditions were unacceptable to the town government and the attack begin. The men took more than 300 women, children, and elderly into a large farmhouse in the town. The canons begin to fire upon the city. The Spanish troops quickly moved into the city. First they killed all the defenders on the walls of the town. Those who fled were chased down and killed as well. Then the Spaniards turned toward the non-combatants. Mothers were killed in front of their children, children in front of their mothers. Girls and women were raped in view of their fathers and husbands. None were spared. Even Catholic nuns were found and replied to the Spaniards that they were Catholic nuns the men replied before raping and killing them, “So much better for your souls.” The Reformed preacher of Oudewater, Johannes Gelasius, had to watch as they murdered his little boy as the Spaniards demanded his recantation of Protestantism to which he said he would not. They then hung Gelasius.
It was in this massacre that Arminius lost his mother, his siblings, and all of his other relatives. His entire family was gone. Arminius was alone in surviving the massacre and by the providence of God, he was away studying.
The Spaniards, after killing nearly the entire city except those whom they felt could help them politically and the rich who could pay for their release, destroyed the entire town. Nothing remains of the old town but the church alone. The town was still under the control of the Spaniards when Arminius returned to the city risking his own life to find out what happened to his family. In December of 1576, the Dutch liberated the city but nothing was left of the town.
I tell this story to simply show that we all face hard times and trials. For most of us, we know nothing of losing our entire family to a massacre like this. Arminius could have turned against God at this point but it seems that his faith only got stronger. He turned this trial into what led him to his studies at the University of Leiden where he would excel to become their top student and would go to Geneva to study under Theodore Beza, the son-in-law and successor to John Calvin. Beza would also go on to say that Arminius was by far his top student. All of this was from the hand of God leading Arminius and protecting him through these dark trials. We don’t know why evil things befall the righteous but we need to trust God through our trials knowing that He is sovereign and He will guide us through (Psalm 23:4-6; Romans 8:18, 28-30; 1 Peter 4:12-19; Revelation 2:10).
The Word of God Does Not Change
What is amazing to me about the Word of God is that you can read a commentary written by Matthew Henry or Adam Clarke or by modern Bible commentators and nothing much changes. Some might have a bit more insight than others but the Word of God does not change. Preaching is the same. You can read sermons by John Calvin or by John Wesley or by Robert Murray M’Cheyne and nothing much changes. The styles may change but the Word of God does not change so long as the preacher is being faithful to teach the Word of God and not to be an entertainer or to add their own thoughts to the text. The Word of God alone needs no improvement (despite what emergents may think) and the Word of God can produce life (2 Timothy 3:15) long after the preacher is dead and gone.
So let me speak frankly to the modern preaching I see today. The Church does not need your “new and cool” sermon series. The Church does not need your lack of Bible teaching. The Church does not need your weekly topical studies of whatever you want to talk about. The Church needs the Word of God! Long after you are dead and gone my non-dealing with the text friend, the Word of God will remain. Isaiah wrote this about the Word of God that you often ignore:
6 A voice says, “Cry!”
And I said, “What shall I cry?”
All flesh is grass,
and all its beauty is like the flower of the field.
7 The grass withers, the flower fades
when the breath of the Lord blows on it;
surely the people are grass.
8 The grass withers, the flower fades,
but the word of our God will stand forever.
Peter quotes from this verse in 1 Peter 1:24. Peter even states that it is the Word of God that produces salvation. Notice Peter’s words:
22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, 23 since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; 24 for
“All flesh is like grass
and all its glory like the flower of grass.
The grass withers,
and the flower falls,
25 but the word of the Lord remains forever.”
And this word is the good news that was preached to you.
The Word of God produces life. So why do so many modern Bible teachers avoid the Bible? They want to preach sermons such as “Apps for Life” or any other topical title they so desire to deal with. The Bible teacher, in turn, becomes the one who speaks to the Church instead of God speaking to His Church. ”But we use the Bible” I can hear the hip Bible teacher declare. But do you? Are people being taught how to properly study, interpret, and apply the Bible? Are they hearing from the text and are you showing through proper exegesis what the Scriptures say or are you simply proof texting your points?
The bottom line is that the people of God need the Word of God. If we are to combat false teachings from the cults or from heresy, we must do so with the Word of God and not the opinions of flesh. Only the Word of God is called “the sword of the Spirit” in Ephesians 6:17. Not a topical sermon on American Idol. The people of God are in desperate need of the Word of God. In an age of abounding errors, we don’t need a new sermon series on “Fear Factor” or “Desperate Sex Lives.” We need to hear from heaven through the Word of God.
If you would teach verse by verse through the Bible then 40 years from now it would still be relevant. Take great expositors such as W.A. Criswell or John MacArthur. You can’t tell if they are preaching a sermon from 1975 or 1996 because the Word of God does not change. I listened to Dr. Criswell preach the other night and it was from the 1970′s but you would not know that because the Word of God does not change. Times change. People change. Politicians change. Sports changes. But the Word of God does not change. So my advice: Preach the Word of God (2 Timothy 4:2).
