Barabas also
recognizes Asa Mahan, leader of the Oberlin perfectionism, as a Keswick
antecedent.[1] The Oberlin perfectionism of Asa Mahan and
his mentor Charles Finney were indeed important to the rise of the Keswick
system,[2]
and were recognized by Keswick as essential historical background for the
genesis of their doctrine. Thus, in 1872
Mahan moved to England and “directly influenced the Keswick movement by his
leadership in the Oxford and Brighton Conferences that immediately preceded the
first Keswick Convention.”[3] Mahan’s books were widely propagated in
Higher Life circles, so that “Keswick writers . . . often mention or quote Asa
Mahan . . . and Charles G. Finney.”[4]
Indeed, “none . . . of . . . the
‘conversational meetings’ at Oxford . . . . was of more interest than that . .
. under the guidance of Asa Mahan,” who strongly taught orally the necessity of
Christians receiving Spirit baptism, as he had already proclaimed in his book The Baptism of the Holy Ghost.[5] As a consequence of Mahan’s “pressing upon”
people, “[d]ay after day,” the necessity of Christians receiving Spirit
baptism, “a[n] . . . experience we should not and must not be without,” “many .
. . realised in his conversational meetings the baptism” and entered into
Mahan’s experience.[6] Likewise, at “the Brighton Convention (of
which he was one of the conveners) Mahan directed a series of sectional
meetings . . . crowded to overflowing . . . [e]ach afternoon,”[7] proclaiming post-conversion Spirit
baptism. He carried the message of the
necessity of a post-conversion “Baptism of the Holy Ghost . . . to the Oxford
(1874) and Brighton (1875) meetings from which the Keswick movements emerged .
. . he spoke and led very popular seminars on the subject.”[8] His emphasis led many into his second blessing Baptism
experience,[9] as
Robert P. Smith and others led many to adopt the doctrine of the “physical
thrills” of a post-conversion erotic Spirit baptism through the propagation of
this doctrine at Oxford and elsewhere.
Indeed, as Mahan and Robert P. Smith explained, the “object of the . . .
Meeting at Oxford . . . was to lead Christians to . . . [be] baptised with the
Holy Ghost.”[10] Furthermore, William “Boardman . . . link[ed] up with Mahan to conduct revivals in both America
and Britain, and both were to have a direct influence on the spiritual and
theological direction of the Keswick Conferences.”[11]
recognizes Asa Mahan, leader of the Oberlin perfectionism, as a Keswick
antecedent.[1] The Oberlin perfectionism of Asa Mahan and
his mentor Charles Finney were indeed important to the rise of the Keswick
system,[2]
and were recognized by Keswick as essential historical background for the
genesis of their doctrine. Thus, in 1872
Mahan moved to England and “directly influenced the Keswick movement by his
leadership in the Oxford and Brighton Conferences that immediately preceded the
first Keswick Convention.”[3] Mahan’s books were widely propagated in
Higher Life circles, so that “Keswick writers . . . often mention or quote Asa
Mahan . . . and Charles G. Finney.”[4]
Indeed, “none . . . of . . . the
‘conversational meetings’ at Oxford . . . . was of more interest than that . .
. under the guidance of Asa Mahan,” who strongly taught orally the necessity of
Christians receiving Spirit baptism, as he had already proclaimed in his book The Baptism of the Holy Ghost.[5] As a consequence of Mahan’s “pressing upon”
people, “[d]ay after day,” the necessity of Christians receiving Spirit
baptism, “a[n] . . . experience we should not and must not be without,” “many .
. . realised in his conversational meetings the baptism” and entered into
Mahan’s experience.[6] Likewise, at “the Brighton Convention (of
which he was one of the conveners) Mahan directed a series of sectional
meetings . . . crowded to overflowing . . . [e]ach afternoon,”[7] proclaiming post-conversion Spirit
baptism. He carried the message of the
necessity of a post-conversion “Baptism of the Holy Ghost . . . to the Oxford
(1874) and Brighton (1875) meetings from which the Keswick movements emerged .
. . he spoke and led very popular seminars on the subject.”[8] His emphasis led many into his second blessing Baptism
experience,[9] as
Robert P. Smith and others led many to adopt the doctrine of the “physical
thrills” of a post-conversion erotic Spirit baptism through the propagation of
this doctrine at Oxford and elsewhere.
Indeed, as Mahan and Robert P. Smith explained, the “object of the . . .
Meeting at Oxford . . . was to lead Christians to . . . [be] baptised with the
Holy Ghost.”[10] Furthermore, William “Boardman . . . link[ed] up with Mahan to conduct revivals in both America
and Britain, and both were to have a direct influence on the spiritual and
theological direction of the Keswick Conferences.”[11]
Mahan was “the
major architect . . . of the controversial ‘Oberlin Perfectionism.’”[12] In addition to teaching “the immediate
attainment of entire sanctification by a special act of faith directed to this
end,”[13]
he denied the doctrine of original sin[14]
and joined Finney, his mentor and colleague at Obelin College, in uniting
perfectionism with many other heresies.[15] Mahan’s development of the post-conversion
crisis of sanctification and Spirit baptism contributed greatly to the “rise of
modern Pentecostalism[.] . . . [I]t is not surprising that modern
Pentecostalism should sprout in th[e] well prepared ground” of the heterodox
Oberlin holiness and pneumatological doctrines powerfully promulgated by Mahan.
Nor is one surprised that, through his influence, “there seem to be several
instances of [tongues] . . . in holiness circles between 1870 and the outbreak
of Pentecostalism in 1900.”[16]
major architect . . . of the controversial ‘Oberlin Perfectionism.’”[12] In addition to teaching “the immediate
attainment of entire sanctification by a special act of faith directed to this
end,”[13]
he denied the doctrine of original sin[14]
and joined Finney, his mentor and colleague at Obelin College, in uniting
perfectionism with many other heresies.[15] Mahan’s development of the post-conversion
crisis of sanctification and Spirit baptism contributed greatly to the “rise of
modern Pentecostalism[.] . . . [I]t is not surprising that modern
Pentecostalism should sprout in th[e] well prepared ground” of the heterodox
Oberlin holiness and pneumatological doctrines powerfully promulgated by Mahan.
Nor is one surprised that, through his influence, “there seem to be several
instances of [tongues] . . . in holiness circles between 1870 and the outbreak
of Pentecostalism in 1900.”[16]
Finney, whose
theology helped to destroy the Second Great Awakening and hinder subsequent
revival,[17]
likewise taught at Oberlin a Pelagian view of sin while denying substitutionary
atonement in favor of the governmental atonement heresy,[18]
among other damnable heresies. For
Finney, the “atonement . . . was not a commercial transaction . . . [not] the
payment of a debt . . . [but] was intended as a satisfaction of public justice.”[19] He also wrote:
theology helped to destroy the Second Great Awakening and hinder subsequent
revival,[17]
likewise taught at Oberlin a Pelagian view of sin while denying substitutionary
atonement in favor of the governmental atonement heresy,[18]
among other damnable heresies. For
Finney, the “atonement . . . was not a commercial transaction . . . [not] the
payment of a debt . . . [but] was intended as a satisfaction of public justice.”[19] He also wrote:
Moral depravity . . . cannot consist . . .
in a sinful constitution . . . [or] an attribute of human nature . . . [m]oral
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. . . . What ground is there for the assertion that Adam’s nature became
in itself sinful by the fall? This is a
groundless, not to say ridiculous, assumption, and an absurdity. . . . This
doctrine is . . . an abomination alike to God and the human intellect.[20]
in a sinful constitution . . . [or] an attribute of human nature . . . [m]oral
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. . . . What ground is there for the assertion that Adam’s nature became
in itself sinful by the fall? This is a
groundless, not to say ridiculous, assumption, and an absurdity. . . . This
doctrine is . . . an abomination alike to God and the human intellect.[20]
Furthermore, Finney’s denial of
substitutionary atonement led him to reject justification by the imputed
righteousness of Christ to teach salvation by personal obedience: “If [Christ]
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?”[21]
Finney plainly stated that the truth of
justification by faith alone based on the imputed righteousness of Christ
(Romans 3:19-28) was a different gospel from the one he believed and
taught. By rejecting the true gospel,
Finney indicated that he was an accursed false teacher who suffered eternal
damnation (Galatians 1:8-9). In his Systematic Theology, Finney accurately
summarized the true gospel and then plainly rejected it:
substitutionary atonement led him to reject justification by the imputed
righteousness of Christ to teach salvation by personal obedience: “If [Christ]
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?”[21]
Finney plainly stated that the truth of
justification by faith alone based on the imputed righteousness of Christ
(Romans 3:19-28) was a different gospel from the one he believed and
taught. By rejecting the true gospel,
Finney indicated that he was an accursed false teacher who suffered eternal
damnation (Galatians 1:8-9). In his Systematic Theology, Finney accurately
summarized the true gospel and then plainly rejected it:
Those who hold that justification by
imputed righteousness is a forensic proceeding, take a view of final or
ultimate justification, according with their view of the transaction. 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; indeed
that he is never justified by grace, as to sins that are past, upon condition
that he ceases to sin; that Christ’s righteousness is the ground, and that his
own present obedience is not even a condition of his justification, so that, in
fact, his own present or future obedience to the law of God is, in no case, and
in no sense, a sine qua non[22] of his justification, present or
ultimate. Now this is certainly another gospel from the one I am
inculcating. It is not a difference
merely upon some speculative or theoretic point. It is a point fundamental to the gospel and
to salvation, if any one can be. Let us
therefore see which of these is the true gospel. I object to this view of justification[.] . .
. The doctrine of a literal imputation of Adam’s sin to all his posterity . . .
[and] 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 as fabulous, and better befitting a romance than a system
of theology.[23]
imputed righteousness is a forensic proceeding, take a view of final or
ultimate justification, according with their view of the transaction. 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; indeed
that he is never justified by grace, as to sins that are past, upon condition
that he ceases to sin; that Christ’s righteousness is the ground, and that his
own present obedience is not even a condition of his justification, so that, in
fact, his own present or future obedience to the law of God is, in no case, and
in no sense, a sine qua non[22] of his justification, present or
ultimate. Now this is certainly another gospel from the one I am
inculcating. It is not a difference
merely upon some speculative or theoretic point. It is a point fundamental to the gospel and
to salvation, if any one can be. Let us
therefore see which of these is the true gospel. I object to this view of justification[.] . .
. The doctrine of a literal imputation of Adam’s sin to all his posterity . . .
[and] 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 as fabulous, and better befitting a romance than a system
of theology.[23]
Finney called men to surrender to
Christ because, as befit his doctrine of salvation by personal obedience and
rejection of the eternal security of the believer, perfect consecration of life
and his version of sinless perfection were an essential condition for entrance
into heaven:
Christ because, as befit his doctrine of salvation by personal obedience and
rejection of the eternal security of the believer, perfect consecration of life
and his version of sinless perfection were an essential condition for entrance
into heaven:
We shall see that perseverance in
obedience to the end of life is also a condition of justification . . .
present, full, and entire consecration of heart and life to God and His
service, is an unalterable condition of present pardon of past sin, and of
present acceptance with God. . . . [T]he
penitent soul remains justified no longer than this full-hearted consecration
continues.[24]
obedience to the end of life is also a condition of justification . . .
present, full, and entire consecration of heart and life to God and His
service, is an unalterable condition of present pardon of past sin, and of
present acceptance with God. . . . [T]he
penitent soul remains justified no longer than this full-hearted consecration
continues.[24]
Mahan and Finney’s false gospel
were intimately bound up with their perfectionism. The perfectionist doctrine of sanctification
promulgated by Finney and Mahan was very influential in the development of the
Keswick theology, both through Mahan’s personal preaching and through the books
of both men:
were intimately bound up with their perfectionism. The perfectionist doctrine of sanctification
promulgated by Finney and Mahan was very influential in the development of the
Keswick theology, both through Mahan’s personal preaching and through the books
of both men:
The links between Keswick and New School
revivalism [Oberlin perfectionism] were many. Both Mahan and Boardman’s
involvement in the Oxford and Brighton conferences helped unify the higher life
aspirations arising from the “Oberlizing of England.” Furthermore, the Reverend John Moore was
close friends with Charles Finney, a relationship which no doubt had influence
on his son, C. G. Moore, one of the early Keswick speakers.[25]
revivalism [Oberlin perfectionism] were many. Both Mahan and Boardman’s
involvement in the Oxford and Brighton conferences helped unify the higher life
aspirations arising from the “Oberlizing of England.” Furthermore, the Reverend John Moore was
close friends with Charles Finney, a relationship which no doubt had influence
on his son, C. G. Moore, one of the early Keswick speakers.[25]
The rationale of Old School
opposition to Finney and Mahan is noteworthy:
opposition to Finney and Mahan is noteworthy:
Old School advocates . . . opposed the
“second blessing” heresy [of Finney and Mahan] because [they] believed it not
only violated the . . . doctrine of depravity, but that it adopted the
modernist reliance of human ability. The concern of Old School advocates was
that New School proponents were being unduly influenced by German liberal
theology, particularly in the elevation of humanist philosophy. . . . New
School theology was not only influenced by the rational pragmatism of the
nineteenth century, particularly in the new measure procedures, but . . . the
emphasis upon human responsibility in [the] New School . . .was the direct
result of modernist thought.[26]
“second blessing” heresy [of Finney and Mahan] because [they] believed it not
only violated the . . . doctrine of depravity, but that it adopted the
modernist reliance of human ability. The concern of Old School advocates was
that New School proponents were being unduly influenced by German liberal
theology, particularly in the elevation of humanist philosophy. . . . New
School theology was not only influenced by the rational pragmatism of the
nineteenth century, particularly in the new measure procedures, but . . . the
emphasis upon human responsibility in [the] New School . . .was the direct
result of modernist thought.[26]
Indeed, “[f]rom . . . the person
and work of Charles Finney . . . the line is a straight one that leads through
the holiness movement directly into Pentecostalism.”[27] Such were Asa Mahan and Charles Finney,
architects of the Oberlin perfectionism and antecedents to the Keswick theology. Sadly, Stephen Barabas, with criminal
neglect, suppresses, fails to warn of, and breathes not a whisper about the
heresies of Keswick antecedents such as Thomas Upham and Asa Mahan, just as he
entirely ignores the heresies, false gospel, and demonism associated with
Hannah and Robert P. Smith.
and work of Charles Finney . . . the line is a straight one that leads through
the holiness movement directly into Pentecostalism.”[27] Such were Asa Mahan and Charles Finney,
architects of the Oberlin perfectionism and antecedents to the Keswick theology. Sadly, Stephen Barabas, with criminal
neglect, suppresses, fails to warn of, and breathes not a whisper about the
heresies of Keswick antecedents such as Thomas Upham and Asa Mahan, just as he
entirely ignores the heresies, false gospel, and demonism associated with
Hannah and Robert P. Smith.
See here for this entire study.
[1] Pg. 16, So Great Salvation, Barabas.
[2] Compare
A. T. Pierson’s recognition of Finney as a Higher Life antecedent and
promulgator of the libertarian “liberty of the Human Will, in salvation and
sanctification,” so that all effectual influences of the Holy Spirit on the
human will, and compatibilist views of freedom, were rejected (pg. 10, Forward Movements of the Last Half Century,
Pierson).
A. T. Pierson’s recognition of Finney as a Higher Life antecedent and
promulgator of the libertarian “liberty of the Human Will, in salvation and
sanctification,” so that all effectual influences of the Holy Spirit on the
human will, and compatibilist views of freedom, were rejected (pg. 10, Forward Movements of the Last Half Century,
Pierson).
[3] Pgs.
98-99, Let Go and Let God? A Survey and Analysis of Keswick Theology,
Andrew Naselli; pgs. 18-24, So Great
Salvation, Barabas.
98-99, Let Go and Let God? A Survey and Analysis of Keswick Theology,
Andrew Naselli; pgs. 18-24, So Great
Salvation, Barabas.
[4] Pg.
251, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism,
Robert Anderson.
251, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism,
Robert Anderson.
[5] Compare
pgs. 49, 81-83, 141-143, 192, Account of the Union Meeting
for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to
September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
pgs. 49, 81-83, 141-143, 192, Account of the Union Meeting
for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to
September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
[6] Pg.
143, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of
Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874; cf. pgs. 176, 192, 215, 241,
278, 333, 341, 356, 360, 369, 371-372, 376, 381.
143, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of
Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874; cf. pgs. 176, 192, 215, 241,
278, 333, 341, 356, 360, 369, 371-372, 376, 381.
[7] See “Asa
Mahan and the Development of American Holiness Theology,” Donald Dayton. Wesleyan
Theological Journal 9:1 (Spring 1974): 60-69; cf. pg. 141, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness,
Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874 &
pgs. 383-385, Record of the Convention
for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th
to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875.
Mahan and the Development of American Holiness Theology,” Donald Dayton. Wesleyan
Theological Journal 9:1 (Spring 1974): 60-69; cf. pg. 141, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness,
Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874 &
pgs. 383-385, Record of the Convention
for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th
to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875.
[8] Pgs. 46-47, Aspects of
Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. Synan.
Capitalization is retained from the original.
Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. Synan.
Capitalization is retained from the original.
[9] Pgs.
384-385, 457, 466-469, Record of the Convention for the Promotion
of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton.
384-385, 457, 466-469, Record of the Convention for the Promotion
of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton.
[10] Pg.
19, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of
Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
19, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of
Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
[11] “Wesleyan
and Reformed Impulses in the Keswick and Pentecostal Movements,” Peter
Althouse. Pneuma Foundation. http://www.pneumafoundation.org.
and Reformed Impulses in the Keswick and Pentecostal Movements,” Peter
Althouse. Pneuma Foundation. http://www.pneumafoundation.org.
[12] “Asa
Mahan and the Development of American Holiness Theology,” Donald W.
Dayton. Wesleyan Theological Journal 9:1 (Spring 1974): 60-69.
Mahan and the Development of American Holiness Theology,” Donald W.
Dayton. Wesleyan Theological Journal 9:1 (Spring 1974): 60-69.
[13] Pg.
67, Perfectionism Vol. 2, Warfield.
67, Perfectionism Vol. 2, Warfield.
[14] Pg.
126, Perfectionism Vol. 2, Warfield.
126, Perfectionism Vol. 2, Warfield.
[15] Compare
pgs. 1-218, Perfectionism, Vol. 2,
Warfield.
pgs. 1-218, Perfectionism, Vol. 2,
Warfield.
[16] “Asa
Mahan and the Development of American Holiness Theology,” Donald W. Dayton.
Mahan and the Development of American Holiness Theology,” Donald W. Dayton.
[17] See
“Considerations on Revival in American History,” by Thomas Ross. Elec. acc. http://faithsaves.net.
“Considerations on Revival in American History,” by Thomas Ross. Elec. acc. http://faithsaves.net.
[18] Compare
pg. 102, the Evangelical Dictionary of
Theology, Walter Elwell, ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1984, and pgs.
312-330, Lectures in Systematic Theology,
Henry C. Thiessen, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, for a statement and a
refutation of the governmental theory.
pg. 102, the Evangelical Dictionary of
Theology, Walter Elwell, ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1984, and pgs.
312-330, Lectures in Systematic Theology,
Henry C. Thiessen, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, for a statement and a
refutation of the governmental theory.
[19] Pgs.
219-222, Finney’s Systematic Theology,
Charles Finney.
219-222, Finney’s Systematic Theology,
Charles Finney.
[20] Pgs.
249-250, 261-263, Finney’s Systematic
Theology, Charles Finney.
249-250, 261-263, Finney’s Systematic
Theology, Charles Finney.
[21] Pg.
218, Finney’s Systematic Theology,
Charles Finney.
218, Finney’s Systematic Theology,
Charles Finney.
[22] Latin
for “an essential condition.”
for “an essential condition.”
[23] Pgs.
369-371, Finney’s Systematic Theology,
Charles Finney.
369-371, Finney’s Systematic Theology,
Charles Finney.
[24] Pgs.
367, 369, Finney’s Systematic Theology,
Charles Finney.
367, 369, Finney’s Systematic Theology,
Charles Finney.
[25] “Wesleyan
and Reformed Impulses in the Keswick and Pentecostal Movements,” Peter
Althouse. Pneuma Foundation. http://www.pneumafoundation.org. Quotation marks from Althouse’s quote of
Bundy have been removed.
and Reformed Impulses in the Keswick and Pentecostal Movements,” Peter
Althouse. Pneuma Foundation. http://www.pneumafoundation.org. Quotation marks from Althouse’s quote of
Bundy have been removed.
[26] “Wesleyan
and Reformed Impulses in the Keswick and Pentecostal Movements,” Peter
Althouse. Pneuma Foundation.
and Reformed Impulses in the Keswick and Pentecostal Movements,” Peter
Althouse. Pneuma Foundation.
[27] Pg.
42, A Theology of the Holy Spirit,
Bruner.
42, A Theology of the Holy Spirit,
Bruner.
Thanks for the info, Thomas. It is always interesting to read what the "heroes of the faith" actually believed. We heard much about men in Bible college, had them held up as "what we need now to turn this country around".
Frankly, I did not understand the 2nd footnote. Any chance you could summarize the a proper view of the Human will & the Holy Spirit? Am I correct that Finney's view would be like a free will Baptist – We have freedom to reject salvation by not living right?
Dear Bro Camp,
Thanks for the comment. Also, you are to be commended for reading the footnotes.
I would say that Phlippians 2:13 teaches that God works in the believer to will and to do, while we still freely will and do, which is a form of what is called compatibalism versus what is called indeterminism. Basically, we are free because nobody forces us to work contrary to our inclination, but God works in the believer to incline him toward righteousness, so the believer not acting just like a heathen is certain while the will is still free. Freedom of the will does not require uncertainty about what a person will do. The saints in heaven have free wills, but they will never choose to rebel against God. The sinner on earth who has committed the unpardonable sin has a free will, but he will never choose to trust in Christ. During His earthly ministry Christ had a free will as part of His true and complete human nature (which He still possesses, of course, and will possess eternally), but there was no possibility of Him choosing evil.
Thanks again.
Thank you, this ongoing work is shedding light on where this error crept in…and why political & manipulative men seeking to use Christianity….such as David Barton and Green etc promote Finney so much. I live in Ohio and had also wondered about Oberlin as the Lord faithfully led us in, through & then out of ministries, denominations and 'churches' one by one by the word revealing error & discomforting conviction, with many failings and many scars. It is good to hear sound voices. Just read 1 Kings 19 this morning—-encouraging.
This also fits with the fake soul-science & the impure antinomian crowd, human goodness & ability, excuse for sin that isn't really sin (we just misunderstood the Hebrew and the Greek! 😉 —I suppose that is Pelagianism by philosophical label, as well as a slice of misinterpreted 'election' and Augustinian Calvinism. Amazing how Luciferian this tempting men in to sin through deceit and opportunism, & abandonment of honest preaching and teaching —-then turning to sniff & accuse the fallen really is: doctrines of Jezebel and Balaam.
So much for 'either-or' dialectic categorizing being sufficient! versus 1 Thess 5 and 1 John 4 test all things and every spirit (inspiration!). —– No wonder independent & non-certified, unsteered & un-managed study is so demonized and discouraged! One would think this nicolaitan order & Jesuitical subtilty had a guiding order & spirit behind it or something….Ephesians 6, 2 Cor 11, 1 John 4…& was purpose driven to some end goal….Daniel 3 & 11, Revelation 13-19……… Oh, yeah.