those loony calvinists

As I’ve said before, Arminians rely primarily on their understanding and perception when forming or supporting theological ideas. Eighteenth century revivalist Charles Finney declared all who questioned human freedom to be insane:

Nobody ever did call in question the freedom of the human will, without justly incurring the charge of insanity. By a necessity of his nature, every moral agent knows himself to be free. He can no more hide this fact from himself, or reason himself out of the conviction of its truth, than he can speculate himself into a disbelief of his own existence…That he is, that he is free, are truths equally well known, and known precisely in the same way, namely, he intuits them.[1]

We are free because we perceive we are free. No other explanation is needed unless you are crazy! Elsewhere he says, “The moral government of God everywhere assumes and implies the liberty of the human will, and the natural ability of men to obey God…The human mind necessarily assumes the freedom of the human will as a first truth.”[2] Notice Finney does not say that scripture declares the freedom of the will—it emphatically does not. We may infer that scripture “assumes and implies” it only because we already assume this. Scripture nowhere states explicitly that men are free. Finney relies not on scripture but on the implication that human freedom is a “first truth,” that is to say, “I am free because I perceive I am.” We do not build doctrine on perception.

Finney delves slightly deeper into this question of depravity. He distinguishes between “physical” and “moral” depravity. Physical depravity regards the body or the constitution. He says, “Physical depravity, being depravity of substance as opposed to the actions of free will, can have no moral character.”[3] It consists of the “nature or [the] constitution.”[4] Finney compares this type of depravity to illness, insanity, or mental retardation.[5] Considering Finney’s legal background, it should surprise no one that these compare directly to the states that exonerate a man in a strictly legal sense. “Moral depravity is the depravity of free will, not of the faculty itself, but of its free action,” he adds.[6] Moral depravity does not mean that the will of men is depraved, but that they make sinful decisions. It is a “depravity of choice…at variance with moral law.”[7]

Finney admits that men are morally depraved but refuses to acknowledge that this depravity lies in their nature, even though he cites scripture that expressly states this.

That men are morally depraved is one of the most notorious facts of human experience, observation and history…The moral depravity of the human race is everywhere assumed and declared in the Bible…The Bible exhibits proof of it in those passages that represent all the unregenerate as possessing some wicked heart of character. “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6.5). “This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one even unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead” (Ecclesiastes 9.3). “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17.9).[8]

If the “heart” does not represent man’s nature, then what can it possibly refer to? Finney makes no clear statement on the distinction. He states that sin consists “in obeying the flesh,”[9] but fails to recognize that the flesh is the body, or in any case, at least representative of either the body or the nature. Either way, depravity rests in this entity that Finney calls “the flesh.” If the flesh is not depraved, then why does sin consist in obeying the flesh? Is this flesh not a part of us? This flesh either resides in us or it is us, our nature, so how can Finney say that we are not “physically depraved,” by his definition?

Finney makes two grand declarations regarding the depravity of human nature. If human nature were corrupt, this would make God the author of sin, for “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.”[10] If human nature were corrupt, then it would have no moral character, and God could not justly judge us for what we are born with. He says, “Physical depravity, whether of body or of mind, can have no moral character in itself, for the plain reason that is involuntary, and in its nature is disease, and not sin.”[11]

Adam was created free, either to obey or disobey God. In his disobedience, his nature became corrupt. He died, as God had promised (Genesis 3.17; Romans 5.12), and all of us inherit his dead, sinful nature. Though we cannot overcome our nature without grace, God judges us in Adam because our representative freely sinned against God (Romans 5.15-19). We cannot charge God with injustice because we are incapable of righteousness. Finney confuses legal concepts with scriptural ones. We do not legally fault the mentally incompetent when they commit crimes, but God will judge every one of us for our sin, whether imbeciles, lunatics, or otherwise. We are slaves to sin, incapable of pleasing God, and dead in sin, and our actions do have moral character. We are always moral agents, either natural or reborn. Before Christ, we are morally sinful. We absolutely are moral agents and our actions have the moral character of sin and only sin. We may do "good" works, but these works do not glorify God because they are not from a heart of faith (Isaiah 64.6; Romans 8.7, 8; 14.23). After we are reborn, we trust in Christ and we begin to have his moral character. Finney’s unwillingness to trust in scripture despite his lack of comprehension does not alter scripture. Finney simultaneously declares the corruption of the flesh and the strength of the constitution without offering any kind of explanation other than to say, if you disagree, you are nuts.

Christ said, “Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8.34). Is our flesh enslaved, and our will free? Does Christ make this kind of distinction? How does Paul describe the problem? In Romans 6, Paul says that our body is ruled by sin and we are slaves to sin (6.6). He says that for anyone to be free from sin, he must die (6.7). Sin reigns in our body but we obey its desires (6.12). Sin is our master, but only Christ can set us free as we identify with him in death (6.8-14). Sin does not only rule our flesh—sin rules us. Sin rules our entire person—soul, mind, body—all of it. If sin does not completely rule us, why do we need Christ? Jesus said, “Apart from me, you can do nothing” (John 15.5). Christ must make us a new creation in order for us to trust in him and obey him (2 Corinthians 5.17). How then can any part of us be righteous without him?

Finney believes his understanding of human freedom to be axiomatic. He believes himself so enlightened that to disagree with him is insanity. He cannot possibly be wrong because he directly intuits what he believes. He places faith in his faculties, in his knowledge, in his perception and reason above all else. His logic sits above the revelation of God. Who can argue with this kind of arrogance?

Arminians believe that sinners please God. They believe that either God has enabled all men to please him by faith, or that they never lost their ability to please him in the fall. They also believe that though natural men can believe in God and therefore please him (Hebrews 11.6), they remain sinners, dead in sin, enslaved to sin, and unable to please him (Genesis 6.5; Jeremiah 17.9; John 8.34; Romans 8.7, 8; Ephesians 2.1). This is a plain contradiction.

---

[1] Finney, 37, emphasis added.

[2] Ibid, 307.

[3] Ibid, 243.

[4] Ibid, 245.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid, 243.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid, 246-247.

[9] Ibid, 250.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid, 243.