Do Mark Kielar and Lane Lie About Charles Finney? (TurretinFan)

[Fgsltw316]

It is sad that deformed...I mean reformed theology can't stand up on it's own merits. They have to slander a great evangelist, theologian and revivalist like Finney. They never mention the fact that Luther and Calvin hated God's "Chosen" people the Jews. Calvin said, "I have had much conversation with many Jews: I have never seen either a drop of piety or a grain of truth or ingenuousness—nay, I have never found common sense in any Jew." The Calvin Handbook page 146 Behold your theologians!!

[CBALLEN]

The whole emergent church movement owe many of their beliefs and tactics to Finney.Their whole premise is to make man comfortable enough with the''Jesus they preach",that he will eventually want to say a prayer to him asking him into their heart.Finney also taught that a believer having Jesus' imputed righteousness was non-sense.He taught that one could only have their past sins forgiven then it was up to the individual to keep himself saved from that point on.

[rokwing]

Finney seemed no better than Charles Taze Russell, in my opinion.

[ChattyChristian]

God warns of false prophets & teachers from Gen. - Rev. Is it therefore incongruous that we should warn others of charismatic historical figures (even those who spoke authoritatively from the pulpit) who preached error or even another Gospel? Long after YouTube, pride, ungodly traditions, beliefs and opinions, the truth in John 4:24 will stand. God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. TRUTH matters. Your eternity depends on it as does mine.

[donaldjamesperry]

From your prospective Finney is teaching salvation by man alone. But Finney also believed God made it possible for people to have something they could choose by Christ. In this Finney is saying and believing that it is also a work of God. So the plan is in God but the choice is in man. We should all be more specific if this is what we mean.

[Joshpb80]

The saddest thing is to see Christians bite and devour other Christians over a theological difference, or a different perspective on the same truth they both agree on. To slander a man such as Charles Finney is sin plain and simple. This man has helped me die to self and live for God more than any other. If we all would read him with an open mind we would see a great revival in the land. Why hinder his effectiveness with slander as LaneCh is guilty of?

[LinuxHawk]

@Joshpb80 I can only suggest, read Jesus &, Pauls words etc. to see how many times in the NT alone we are advised, instructed, and warned about false prophets and people teaching watered down messages.

Also this is not to be done lightly...

But when there is so much evidence on someone, we are obliged to expose them.

Anyone can mistakenly say something on a sermon or 2, but when it is has a consistency about it, you can see it is no accident.

& effectiveness???

I was a victim of such tactics.

[Joshpb80]

I've read tons of the bible and Finney. More than enough to know that what Kielar says about him is nothing but lies lies lies. Do your own careful reading of Finney and you will see even if you are a Calvinist.

[eklektos777]

@Joshpb80

Telling people that they are wrong is not biting and devouring them. The fact is, errors of doctrine do have practical implications. Yes, the Lord did bless you through Finney's ministry and in spite of his errors, but what about the thousands who got hardened to the gospel on account of his decisional regeneration doctrine? Those people would have been better off not hearing any gospel at all.

[Joshpb80]

I beg you to read Finneys books in his own words from beginning to end before drawing these conclusions. Finney never preached that we are saved by deciding to pray a prayer. He made sure they were ready and properly instructed. As for his theology, I agree with him and I don't mind if you don't.

[APSOC38]

It's one thing to go on hearsay, but it's quite another to have that hearsay confirmed. There is nothing more disturbing than to see Finney's defenders accuse us of taking him out of context, only to read his material right back to them and confirm our suspicions that the guy was a heretic. I'd heard all the stuff about him, I read the Phil Johnson article, and then I started reading Finney's systematic theology online. The book removes any doubts about his heresy.

[danieljdick]

So, from what you're saying, Finney is absolutely right. We are the ones who sinned against God. It would make no sense to say it was God's job to repent and get right with us. We are the ones who have to give up our sin, repent of it, and trust in Christ. That's our job. Not His. He provided the sacrifice, the calling, the Gospel, the means and provisions. But, we have to respond and give up our sin and receive Jesus as Lord and Savior. It's our job. Why is this so hard to understand?

[benhuey]

Finney also went to great lengths to point out that every bit conversion and every bit of the Christian life is utterly dependent on God.

I am not calling you guys liars, but I have read and understand his theology and you are absolutely misrepresenting Finney in this video and in the one you are referring to.

[LaneCh]

So I'm apparently confused. You say that Finney taught that every bit of conversion was utterly dependent on God, so when Finney said, "Regeneration or conversion is the work of man" is a good phrase, do you hold that he was using reverse psychology with the hopes that we'd hold he was teaching just the opposite?

[benhuey]

Your confusion lies in the fact that you have come to a conclusion on something with out having read enough of his theology first hand for your self.

[LaneCh]

Will you please address the quote I referred to you because reading his quote verbatim completely contradicts your assertion that Finney taught that every bit of conversion is utterly dependent on God. He taught that it was utterly dependent on man if you take his quote as it's written.

[benhuey]

No I won't. You want to haggle over one partial quote taken out of context, and out of the context of his message as a whole.

[LaneCh]

Define the context, then. I've been more than fair to give you the opportunity to address this. Please don't run and hide now.

[APSOC38]

Looks like all benhuey wants to do is to accuse, and then run and hide. If he's so sure that Finney is right, then why doesn't he follow through with your simple request? That's all you're asking for.

[silmalila]

People just want glory for themselves.

All glory to God Almighty and Jesus Christ our Lord, and the Spirit by which we have been regenerated.

Praise God, forever!

I am but a worm.

[tezkingkong]

But a sweet worm :)

[silmalila]

Why thank you, Tez.

: )

[curvalecce]

The relevant paragraph of Finney's "Revival Lecture number 12 - How to preach the Gospel" ends with these words.

'God commands you to make you a new heart, expects you to do it; and, if ever it is done, you must do it.

And let me tell you, sinner, if you do not do it you will go to hell; and to all eternity you will feel that you deserved to be sent there for not having done it.'

Leaving Ezekiel 11:19 to one side, surely Finney's words prove his Pelagianism heresy.

[benhuey]

You're calling a man a heretic and not even looking at the scripture he's referring to. When he said 'God commands you to make you a new heart' as you quoted, he was accurately quoting God and you call him heretic? How maligning!

Eze 18:31 Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel?

That's accurately what God said "Make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit".

[LaneCh]

Let's look at Ezekiel 18:31. While it's true that some translations translate the Hebrew word ‛âśâh as "make", others believe it is more accurately translated "get" or "gather". That's up for discussion, but it is interesting to point out.

Let's take it as being rightly translated as "make", though. Does that necessarily mean that God is commanding unregenerate people to make their hearts new? Let's look at John Gill's explanation of the passage:

[LaneCh]

"and make you a new heart and a new spirit; which the Lord elsewhere promises to give, and he does give to his own elect; See Gill on Eze_11:19; and if here to be understood of a regenerated heart and spirit, in which are new principles of light, life, and love, grace and holiness, it will not prove that it is in the power of man to make himself such a heart and spirit; since from God's command, to man's power, is no argument; ...

[LaneCh]

...and the design of the exhortation is to convince men of their want of such a heart; of the importance of it: and which, through the efficacious grace of God, may be a means of his people having it, seeing he has in covenant promised it to them. "

So, as explained by Gill, just because the verse does say "make", it doesn't have to necessarily follow that the verse need be interpreted in the way Finney interprets it.

[benhuey]

I see. So in order to understand make you got to have several paragraphs of commentary to get it to say something other than what it says right on the surface?

The word is used in scripture like this "Let us MAKE man in..."God ended all his WORK on the seventh day", "I will MAKE him a help meet", "Unto Adam and also to his wife did the Lord God MAKE coats of skins". That's how the word is used in the first three chapters of the book. plug the meaning of the word in as used.

[LaneCh]

Why not deal with what the man said instead of only replying to the number of comment boxes that it took to reproduce what he said? Hmmmm... I wonder. :)

[benhuey]

I was clarifying the meaning of 'Work' from Ezekiel 18:31 by referring to other scriptures that used the same word, giving space for scripture itself to define the word. You want to add commentary into the dialogue that necessarily makes "make'' mean something other than make.

[alivebcuzofchrist]

Finney may have believed in perfectionism, but this is counter to scripture, and Finney's methods were far from perfect. Psychological manipulation will never be a replacement of the rightly preached word of God (God's ordained means) and the work of the Holy Spirit to convert man. That is the bottom line of biblical theology.

Calvinism has brought some to the error of Hyper-Calvinism. Arminians have given birth to word-faith, charismatic movements, pray-a-prayer salvation, and many Cults.

[alivebcuzofchrist]

Didn't take long for them to make a response video.

It seems as though Mark and Lane only point to Finney as being in error to point out when Arminian Salvation became popularized in the U.S., and to show how his logical conclusions, as a matter of history, led to more grievous theological errors and false conversions as a result of his methods and presuppositions.

The "Refuter" seems to want to redeem Finney to support his position, and ignores the historical results of Finney's revivalism.

[APSOC38]

As for the "Refuter" and their neverending quest to paint a positive brush on Finney, that's their sole modus operandi.

[Paul1T2Day]

Thanks Lane for reposting this video! I just wanted to leave a brief comment waying in on this war that was started by Mr. Skelly. In my judgement, it seems quite evident this series of events is nothing more than an attempt by Skelly and his gang to get more popularity and reknown on YouTube. The reason why they went after TurretinFan's response was due to his connections with Dr. White which Skelly hoped would further their cause. I really find their dispute quite silly. God bless!

[APSOC38]

How true, because there is no way that Skelly et. al. could ever win a face-to-face debate with Dr. White and TurretinFan. Thus, they'd have to resort to ad homs and hit&runs to justify their heresy.

Why can't they just get over their prideful self-righteousness and admit for once that they're wrong? Unless God opens their eyes, they can't. Yet, unless they repent, they're going to be held accountable for their heresies.

[evegpt]

wkii

"Finney's theology is difficult to classify, as can be observed in his masterwork, Religious Revivals. In this work, he also states that salvation depends on a person's will to repent and not forced by God on people against their will.[However, Finney affirmed salvation by grace through faith alone, not by works or by obedience.Finney also affirmed that works were the evidence of faith. The presence of unrepentant sin thus evidenced that a person did not have saving faith".

[LaneCh]

Well, if Wiki says it, who am I to question it... ?  :)

[whereiskeven]

that's like saying rob bell is orthodox because he claims to 'affirm the historic christian faith'... and then goes ahead and contradicts several aspects of that faith that he claims to affirm.

i can say i'm a monkey as long as i want, but that doesn't make it true.

[MistaPage]

Lane, one little thing... It does seem to me that Mark Kielar has misrepresented Finney: for example, in his quote from the very end of the chapter on Sanctification in Finney's Systematic Theology. Are you and Tur8 going to address that point in Rightly Divided?

Sorry to quibble; I am very grateful for your channel Lane! But I think the Open Theists might have a point here...

[LaneCh]

Which quote are you referring to? Please provide the quote and your specific objection. Right now, you've provided something too ambiguous to address directly.

[MistaPage]

Ah, okay... In the "initial video" - about you being a liar - listen at 17:00.

I don't think Kielar "misquotes" but I do think he misrepresents. The quote is clearly not from the "end" of Finney's life; and I think the quote is taken out of context. Finney is only "rejecting" his early labours - the "common views" - not the theology and practice which he talks about in his Systematic Theology.

[MistaPage]

Kielar's quote begins... "I was often instrumental in bringing Christians under great conviction..." The words immediately before this (that is, the start of the sentence) are like this: "While I inculcated the common views..."

[agentorangetechno]

Kielar is the bomb, love his preaching

[TCMAO0]

Amen! Word Pictures is a HUGE BLESSING from our FATHER in heaven. Please help support our brothers at truthmattersinc it is a website (just search for their forum). Peace and grace to you!

[MistaPage]

Lane, just to let you know that I have tried several times to reply to "RefutingCalvinism". My comments where "pending approval" but never appeared for some reason (maybe YouTube bugs?) And now comments have been disabled on that video

There are many, many flaws in the arguments on those videos, but, unfortunately, I've not been able to reply to them. Thanks for letting my comments appear (straight away) on this video.

[cgy12telus]

I put my name to "I accept the sacrifice of the blood of Jesus as the payment for all sins I have committed or will commit" a few years back, and so, if that means salvation is a work, then so be it...but salvation on the whole is Jesus doing all the work of dying on the cross and just me accepting and embracing it and signing the document. So, w/e, guys.

[LaneCh]

If it's by works then you can boast. That's what Paul says. (Eph. 2:8-9) He also calls those people who say that they're justified by works eternally cursed (anathema - Galatians). Here's what you say basically, "If it's by works, so be it. Whatever, guys." Since Paul wrote most of the New Testament, and your and his stories contradict, perhaps it isn't Paul who should check himself to see if he's really in the faith.

[SonistheFatherofMan]

Do you follow Paul or Jesus?

[LaneCh]

SonistheFatherofMan, since the Bible is inspired by God and Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, your question presents a false dichotomy.

[SonistheFatherofMan]

Yeshua is G-d. My question presents no dichotomies and furthermore, it is straightforward. Do you even know what it means to be a Christian? It is no walk in the park and works matter. Also, you can lose your salvation.

[LaneCh]

Sir, I don't even know what this means: "It is no walk in the park and works matter." That sentence doesn't make sense. Also, do you not believe that the Bible is inspired by God?

[SonistheFatherofMan]

How does that sentence not make sense? Of course the Bible was inspired by G-d and of course its been tampered with and the enemy has infiltrated it just as he's infiltrated Christianity. Being a Christian isn't fun and games. Its a real commitment and unless you are a false one, you will probably suffer greatly for being one.

[LaneCh]

Do you believe that the Bible we have today is infallible?

[SonistheFatherofMan]

Its what we have. I believe Yeshua is infallible. I believe He's returning and I believe that I'm arguing with the wrong person. We're on the same side.

[LaneCh]

I realize that we have the Bible today, but that isn't what I asked you. Would you please answer the question I addressed to you? Do you believe that the Bible we have today is infallible? Let your answer be yea, yea or nay, nay.

[SonistheFatherofMan]

Only G-d knows the answer to that question. As for me, its what I have so I hope it is.

[agentorangetechno]

YES YES YES AND YES!

[TheLostHyrulian]

Paul was inspired in his writing of the scriptures by God just like any other author of scripture. By saying that any one of us follows Paul directly is saying we look outside the words of scripture and to the words of Paul, in which none of us do. In a way, though, all those who follow scripture are following Paul, as Paul believed in the risen Christ, the atonement for sin, and the redemption of mankind through Him. This would also mean we follow John and James and Matthew.

[cgy12telus]

Wow, thank you for causing me to put some thought into these things...and actually, I've just boasted. I apologize.

As for w/e, I'm referring to the arguing and fighting and the groups who won't apologize or admit that they are wrong. In any case, my thing is this - at what point can I claim that I *accepted* everything? What does "accepting Jesus into my heart" mean - did I do that or "God made me do it"? I'm a tad confused.

[LaneCh]

We definitely accept Christ. Calvinists hold to that. What we don't say, however, is that our acceptance merited us Salvation (ie. acceptance is the one atoning work we did to save ourselves.) If not accepting Christ is a sin (which it is) then either we atone for that sin by accepting Christ apart from anything God does (our one work) or God gives us the faith and even provides the atonement for even that sin (saves us from all our sins including not accepting Christ).

[AKhardcore1]

I agree. But that video is dumb.

[DefendingTheTruth]

It would take a literal miracle to get Kerrigan to apologize. He is so wrapped in his man-made philosophy, and so against the truth, that only God changing his heart would lead him to apologize.

[APSOC38]

Nothing could be closer to the Truth on that one. Well said.

[talithakoumi]

is it just me or is this 'cartoon' a wee bit creepy?

[deejaySpirit]

1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

[zitan17]

wow i never knew Charles Finney had this view. seems that he had great understanding of scripture. by grace through faith, im sure Finney would agree that a man can not change "on his own" rather that change is caused by God. not just a new heart but also by the Word.

[fruitofspirit]

Yea, that ole lying snake in the grass, Mark Kielar. I can't stand his kind. He's gotta be stopped.

;)

LORD have mercy. "They know not what they do."

[rpavich]

Lane,

it's too bad that that crowd is so unreasonable. If they had any honor at all they'd just retract their statements and rephrase them if necessary.

[S7VIIN]

Refuting Calvinism posted a counter response video to this video already.

[LaneCh]

Yes. If you read the description to this video, you'll see that's already said.

[S7VIIN]

LaneCh,

I see, at least you're going to respond instead of just ignoring criticism like many others do. I'll look forward to what you guys have to say since it seems like you may have erred. Also, you list a link to what Phil Johnson wrote on Finney, and getting information from one of Finney's opponents on Finney himself, isn't always the best way to go (e.g. learning Calvinism from one of it's biased opponents).

-Seven

[LaneCh]

If you look at the description more closely, you'll see that I not only linked to Phil Johnson's article (1 link) but also to both the videos Mr. Skelly did in return (2 links). Obviously the links in the description regarding information is more weighted to what I'd consider the opposition instead of the position I promote.  I expect more attention to detail in the future if you wish to offer further critiques. This is the second time that I've had to point out things to you now.

[LaneCh]

All of that is to basically say that even though I do present a link to something that is critical to Finney, I also provide two links to something that is pro-Finney, yet the only thing you mention regarding a bias is the one that is critical of Finney. You don't fault me for the latter. You only fault me for the former even though all the links present a bias either pro or con. That's very, very interesting.

[S7VIIN]

LaneCh,

You missed my point, of course the information is "weighed" in this sense, but that's not what I'm talking about. You list Phil Johnson as a primer on Finney, and that's what I'm talking about. If people want a primer on Finney, shouldn't they check out his theology for themselves from his own writings, like those in his systematic theology and autobiography? That's like me pointing to "The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting" as a primer on Calvinism.

[LaneCh]

If only Johnson's side was presented as a basis for more information on the topic, I'd agree. That wouldn't be right. Your example right now, though, is basically a strawman. A correct example would be if one presented one link affirming Calvinism and two links denying Calvinism. For your example to be valid, you'd have to take the Johnson article out of the context of the entire description. Please correct your example, and make it in accordance to what we're dealing with now.

[S7VIIN]

LaneCh,

I didn't catch one of your comments, the one in which you say "That's very, very interesting." The reason why I "fault" you for "regarding a bias" to "the one that is critical of Finney." is because you pass it off as a primer on Finney, not just as a link being critical of him. A good primer on him would be something like his autobiography or his own writings, not a critique from an opposing side. Whether my example was bad or not seems irrelevant now, but I do apologize.

[zmode82]

Hey! Turretinfan its been a while. Nice to see you post a video again. I enjoy them alot.