Bill Clinton was once asked how one might determine if he is a Democrat or a Republican. Admitting it was merely a thumbnail test, he famously responded that, “Well, if you think the 60s were mostly good, you’re probably a Democrat; if you think they were mostly bad, probably a Republican.”

The same might be done when trying to determine if one be a confessionalist or an Evangelical. Clinton used a rather popular ease way to sort out political affiliation. Likewise, for this taxonomy it may be said that, “If one thinks Billy Graham is mostly beneficial, he’s probably an Evangelical; if he thinks Graham is mostly disadvantageous, probably a confessionalist.”

If that seems too harsh, consider what Graham thinks he owes revivalist Charles Finney, whose picture adorns the archways in the halls of Graham’s main offices and who Graham considers “the greatest evangelist since the Apostle Paul.” Why is that a problem? Saith Finney:

“If he had obeyed the Law as our substitute [that is Adam] then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non of our salvation? The atonement is simply an incentive to virtue.”

Against the view that “the atonement is a literal payment of a debt” Finney taught that “the atonement of itself does not secure the salvation of anyone.” Justification by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness Finney says, “…is not only absurd, but undermines all motivation for personal holiness. The new birth is not a divine gift, but the result of a rational choice to turn from sin to obedience.” In fact, his most famous sermon was “Sinners Bound to Change Their Own Hearts.” Christians can perfectly obey God in this life if they choose and only in this way are they justified. In fact, he adds, “Full present obedience is a condition of justification. No one can be justified while sin, any degree of sin, remains in him.”

Finney declared concerning the Reformation formula “simultaneously justified and sinful,”

“…this error has slain more souls I fear than all the Universalism that ever cursed the world. For whenever a Christian sins he comes under condemnation and must repent and do his first works or be lost. As I have already said, there can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to Law. The doctrine of an imputed righteousness or that Christ’s obedience to the Law was credited as our obedience is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption. For Christ’s righteousness could do more than justify himself, it could never be imputed to us. It was naturally impossible, then, for him then to obey in our behalf. Representing the atonement as the ground of the sinner’s justification has been a sad occasion of stumbling for many.”

Referring to the framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith and their view of an imputed righteousness Finney writes, “If this is not antinomianism then I don’t know what is.” Of the Confessions themselves he declared them to be “paper popes!”

With friends like that, well, said rule of thumb might be better than a finger in the eye.