Lecture VII: On Being Filled with the Spirit

THE CONSEQUENCES OF HAVING THE SPIRIT

1. You will be called eccentric; and probably you will deserve it. Probably you will really be eccentric. I never knew a person who was filled with the Spirit that was not called eccentric. And the reason is that such people are unlike other folk. There is therefore the best of reasons why such persons should appear eccentric. They act under different influences, take different views, are moved by different motives, led by a different spirit. You are to expect such remarks. How often I have heard the remark respecting such-and-such persons: “He is a good man – but he is rather eccentric.” I have sometimes asked for the particulars; in what does his eccentricity consist? I hear the catalogue, and it amounts to this, that he is spiritual. …

2. If you have much of the Spirit of God, it is not unlikely you will be thought deranged, by many. We judge men to be deranged when they act differently from what we think to be according to prudence and common sense, and when they come to conclusions for which we can see no good reasons. … Multitudes have appeared, to those who had no spirituality, as if they were deranged. Yet they saw good reasons for doing as they did. God was leading their minds to act in such a way that those who were not spiritual could not see the reasons. You must make up your mind to this, and so much the more, as you live the more above the world and walk with God.

4. You will be often grieved with the state of the ministry. Some years since I met a woman belonging to one of the Churches in this city. I inquired of her the state of religion here. She seemed unwilling to say much about it, made some general remarks, and then choked, and her eyes filled, and she said: “Oh, our minister’s mind seems to be very dark!” Spiritual Christians often feel like this, and often weep over it. I have seen much of it, having often found Christians who wept and groaned in secret, to see the darkness in the minds of ministers in regard to religion, the earthliness, and fear of man; but they dared not speak of it lest they should be denounced and threatened, and perhaps turned out of the Church.. …

When a minister has gone with a Church as far as his experience in spiritual exercises goes, there he stops; and until he has a renewed experience, until he is reconverted, his heart broken up afresh, and he set forward in the Divine life and Christian experience, he will help them no more. He may preach sound doctrine, and so may an unconverted minister; but, after all, his preaching will want that searching pungency, that practical bearing, that unction which alone will reach the case of a spiritually minded Christian. It is a fact over which the Church is groaning, that the piety of young men suffers so much in the course of their education, that when they enter the ministry, however much intellectual furniture they may possess, they are in a state of spiritual babyhood….

10. If filled with the Spirit, you will be useful. You cannot help being useful. Even if you were sick and unable to go out of your room, or to converse, and saw nobody, you would be ten times more useful than a hundred of those common sort of Christians who have no spirituality.

12. You will be wise in using means for the conversion of sinners. If the Spirit of God is in you, He will lead you to use means wisely, in a way adapted to the end, and to avoid doing hurt. No man who is not filled with the Spirit of God is fit to be employed in directing the measures adopted in a revival. His hands will be “all thumbs,” unable to take hold, and he will act as if he had not common sense. But a man who is led by the Spirit of God will know how to time his measures aright, and how to apportion Divine truth so as to make it tell to the best advantage.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT BEING FILLED WITH THE SPIRIT.

3. If you have not the Spirit, you will be very apt to stumble at those who have. You will doubt the propriety of their conduct. If they seem to feel a good deal more than yourself, you will be likely to call it “animal feeling.”

You will perhaps doubt their sincerity when they say they have such feelings You will say: “I don’t know what to make of Brother Such-a-one; he seems to be very pious, but I do not understand him, I think he has a great deal of animal feeling.” Thus you will be trying to censure them, for the purpose of justifying yourself.

4. You will be had in reputation with the impenitent, and with carnal professors. They will praise you, as “a rational, orthodox, consistent Christian.” You will be just in the frame of mind to walk with them, because you are agreed.

5. You will be much troubled with fears about fanaticism. Whenever there are revivals, you will see in them “a strong tendency to fanaticism,” and will be full of fears and anxiety.

6. You will be much disturbed by the measures that are used in revivals. If any measures are adopted, that are decided and direct, you will think they are all “new,” and will stumble at them just in proportion to your want of spirituality. You do not see their appropriateness. You will stand and cavil at the measures, because you are so blind that you cannot see their adaptedness, while all heaven is rejoicing in them as the means of saving souls.

Thesis XV.

In the eleventh place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the Gospel is turned into a preaching of repentance.

Let us now take up the Bible-passages which refer to the Gospel in the strict sense, and learn by what marks we may know them. There are five marks: —

1. Whenever the Gospel is contrasted with the Law, it is quite certain that the termGospel does not refer to the Gospel in the wide, but in the narrow sense.

Eph. 2, 14–17 we read: He is our Peace, who hath made both one and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having established in His flesh the enmity, even the Law of commandments, contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the Cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and came and preached peace [Luther: by the Gospel] unto you which were afar off and to them that were nigh. According to this text the preaching of the Law, which does not bring peace, precedes and is followed by the Gospel, which brings peace.

2. Whenever the Gospel is presented as the peculiar teaching of Christ or as the doctrine that proclaims Christ, it cannot refer to the Law at the same time; for we read, John 1, 17: The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ did not first publish the Law, but He purged the Law from the false interpretations of the Pharisees, because the proper knowledge of the Law is necessary before a person is able to accept the Gospel.

3. Whenever poor sinners are named as the subject to whom the Gospel is addressed, you may be certain that the reference is to the Gospel in the strict sense. Matt. 11, 5 The poor have the Gospel preached to them. Luke 4, 18: The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach the Gospel to the poor.

4. Whenever forgiveness of sins, righteousness, and salvation by grace are named as effects of the Gospel, the reference is to the Gospel in the strict sense. Rom. 1, 16: I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Eph. 1, 13 In whom ye also trusted after that ye heard the Word of Truth, the Gospel of your salvation.

5. When faith is named as the correlate of the Gospel, the reference is to the Gospel in the strict sense. Mark 1, 15 Repent ye and believe the Gospel. Mark 16, 15–16 Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. Also the passage cited last certainly refers to the Gospel in the strict sense. The remarks of the Lord about unbelievers who shall be damned, are not indeed a part of the Gospel, but Law. The Lord adds these remarks in order to let those who reject the Gospel know that by their unbelief they are doing that which will hurl them into perdition.

Indeed, what part of Romans 13 or 1 Peter 2 implies that civil disobedience, to say nothing of conspiracy to assassinate a magistrate, is a Christian virtue? The Valiant for Truth wonders:

Here’s a crucial question: should “minister of the gospel” and words such as “deception,” “conspiracy,” and “assassination,” appear in the same sentence (370, 380-93, 423-27)? These are the same words that are used to described the tools of the Nazi government. And make no mistake about it, Bonhoeffer was executed, not for his preaching of the gospel, but for his involvement in the assassination plot; the order for Bonhoeffer’s execution was likely given by Hitler himself (529). So what does this all mean?

The Scriptures are clear, that as ministers, the weapons of our warfare are not of this world (2 Cor. 10:4). Ministers wield the sword of the Spirit, the word of God—they herald the gospel of Christ. To be sure, there were scores of Confessing Church ministers who were arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and even killed for preaching the gospel. When a minister, therefore, is taken to the gallows, should it be because he has a Bible or a sword in his hand? Some might think that preaching means nothing in the face of violent evil, but the gospel is the aroma of life for those leading to life and the aroma of death for those leading to death—it is double-edged—it brings either salvation or condemnation (2 Cor. 2:14-15; Heb. 4:12).

To the outside world, it may seem like the preaching of the gospel is resignation to evil. Instead, we should recognize that, yes, to the natural man the gospel is foolishness—such is the cruciform wisdom of God. When in the face of evil ministers herald the gospel, they follow Christ in the Via Dolorosa and take up their crosses. This means that ministers who do this will likely suffer for their fidelity to Christ. As tempting as it might be, ministers should never trade the sword of the Spirit for the sword of steel.

They developed four distinctive emphases:

• They preferred the subjective to the objective (“heart” to the “head”)
• They preferred the spontaneous to the planned (rejecting liturgy)
• They emphasized the individual I more than the corporate we.
• They emphasized the small group rather than the visible church as the source of spiritual growth.

Be the first with the right answer(s), and as a reward everybody will know that you are smart.

[Update: Commenter 'Tony' is smart! The writer is T. David Gordon, Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns, pp. 144-5, discussing the connection between German (Lutheran) Pietism and modern American Evangelicalism. An extended quote is in the comment trail below.]

An implicit assumption of faith-based politics is that people who hold the same religious convictions will, or at least should, look at the political order in similar ways. Some invoke the idea of worldview. Faith creates an outlook that prompts believers to see the world in a specific way, one that calls for similar forms of political engagement or similar kinds of policy and legislation. This assumption has been crucial to Republicans’ cultivation of evangelicals. Born-again values voters share a perspective that will rally around certain proposals or ideals.

A moment’s reflection reveals the folly of such an assumption. Evangelical Protestants are one of the least unified groups of American believers at the level of ecclesiastical affiliation and religious organization. Enough differences exist between Wesleyans and Calvinists, Baptists and Pentecostals, megachurches and small congregations to prompt a veritable cornucopia of fellowships and associations. (One could make a similar point about Roman Catholics and Jews; neither of these groups in the United States has yielded predictable uniformity.) Why then would pundits and scholars treat evangelicals as if their faith, which on Sundays divides them along a host of theological and institutional lines, would unite them when they line up on the first Tuesday in November to cast their ballots in presidential contests?

From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin: Evangelicals and the Betrayal of American Conservatism, p. 145.

Sorry, Dallas Willard, but now I know why I prefer the cinema to small groups.

(Old School Princeton)

Today Finney describes the Old School opposition to his New Measures, shows his preference for Methodist ministers because they “pour fire” on hearers, complains about Princeton, and likens New Measure critics to Roman Catholics.

Lecture XIV: Measures to Promote Revivals

2. The same distinctions, in substance, that now exist, have always existed, in all seasons of reformation and revival of religion. There have always been those who particularly adhered to their forms and notions, and precise way of doing things, as if they had a “Thus saith the Lord” for every one of them. They have called those that differed from them, who were trying to roll the ark of salvation forward, Methodists, New Lights, Radicals, New School, New Divinity, and various other opprobrious names. And the declensions that have followed have been uniformly owing to two causes, which should by no means be overlooked by the church.

(1.) The Old School, or Old Measure party, have persevered in their opposition, and eagerly seized hold of any real or apparent indiscretion in the friends of the work.

In such cases, the churches have gradually lost their confidence in the opposition to new measures, and the cry of “New Divinity,” and “Innovation” has ceased to alarm them. They see that the blessing of God is with those that are thus accused of new measures and innovation, and the continued opposition of the Old School, together with the continued success of the New School, have destroyed their confidence in the opposition, and they get tired of hearing the incessant cry of “New Lights,” and “New Divinity,” and “New Measures.” Thus the scale has turned, and the churches have pronounced a verdict in favor of the New School, and of condemnation against the Old School.

(2.) …when the battle had been fought, and the victory gained, the rash zeal of some well-meaning but headlong individuals, has brought about a reaction that has spread a pall over the churches for years. This was the case, as is well known, in the days of President Edwards. Here is a rock, upon which a light-house is now built, and upon which if the church now run aground, both parties are entirely without excuse. It is now well known, or ought to be known, that the declension which followed the revivals in those days, together with the declensions which have repeatedly occurred, were owing to the combined influence of the continued and pertinacious opposition of the Old School, and the ultimate bad spirit and recklessness of some individuals of the New School.. . .

3. The present cry against new measures is highly ridiculous, when we consider the quarter from which it comes, and all the circumstances in the case. It is truly astonishing that grave ministers should really feel alarmed at the new measures of the present day, as if new measures were something new under the sun, and as if the present form and manner of doing things had descended from the apostles, and were established by a “Thus saith the Lord:” when the truth is, that every step of the church’s advance from the gross darkness of Popery, has been through the introduction of one new measure after another. We now look with astonishment, and are inclined to look almost with contempt, upon the cry of “Innovation,” that has preceded our day; and as we review the fears that multitudes in the church have entertained in by-gone days with respect to innovation, we find it difficult to account for what appear to us the groundless and absurd, at least, if not ridiculous objections and difficulties which they made. But, my hearers, is it not wonderful, that at this late day, after the church has had so much experience in these matters, that grave and pious men should seriously feel alarmed at the introduction of the simple, the philosophical, and greatly prospered measures of the last ten years? As if new measures were something not to be tolerated, of highly disastrous tendency, and that should wake the notes and echoes of alarm in every nook and corner of the church.

4. We see why it is that those who have been making the ado about new measures have not been successful in promoting revivals.

They have been taken up with the evils, real or imaginary, which have attended this great and blessed work of God. That there have been evils, no one will pretend to deny. But I do believe, that no revival ever existed since the world began, of so great power and extent as the one that has prevailed for the last ten years, which has not been attended with as great or greater evils. Still a large portion of the church have been frightening themselves and others, by giving constant attention to the evils of revivals. One of the professors in a Presbyterian Theological Seminary, felt it his duty to write a series of letters to Presbyterians, which were extensively circulated, the object of which seemed to be to sound the note of alarm throughout all the borders of the church, in regard to the evils attending revivals. While men are taken up with the evils instead of the excellencies of a blessed work of God, how can it be expected that they will be useful in promoting it? I would say all this in great kindness, but still it is a point upon which I must not be silent….

6. It is evident that we must have more exciting preaching, to meet the character and wants of the age. …Look at the Methodists. Many of their ministers are unlearned, in the common sense of the term, many of them taken right from the shop or the farm, and yet they have gathered congregations, and pushed their way, and won souls everywhere. Wherever the Methodists have gone, their plain, pointed and simple, but warm and animated mode of preaching has always gathered congregations. Few Presbyterian ministers have gathered so large assemblies, or won so many souls. Now are we to be told that we must pursue the same old, formal mode of doing things, amidst all these changes? As well might the North River be rolled back, as the world converted under such preaching. Those who adopt a different style of preaching, as the Methodists have done, will run away from us. The world will escape from under the influence of this old fashioned or rather new fashioned ministry. It is impossible that the public mind should be held by such preaching. We must have exciting, powerful preaching, or the devil will have the people, except what the Methodists can save. It is impossible that our ministers should continue to do good, unless we have innovations in regard to the style of preaching. Many ministers are finding it out already, that a Methodist preacher, without the advantages of a liberal education will draw a congregation around him which a Presbyterian minister, with perhaps ten times as much learning, cannot equal, because he has not the earnest manner of the other, and does not pour out fire upon his hearers when he preaches.

7. …Some young men in Princeton, a few years ago, came out with an essay upon the “evils of revivals.” I should like to know, now, how many of those young men have enjoyed revivals among their people, since they have been in the ministry; and if any have, I should like to know whether they have not repented of that piece about the evils of revivals.

If I had a voice so loud as to be heard at Princeton, I would speak to those young men on this subject. It is high time to talk plainly on this point. The church is groaning in all her borders for the want of suitable ministers. Good men are laboring and are willing to labor night and day to assist in educating young men for the ministry, to promote revivals of religion; and when they come out of the seminary, some of them are as shy of all the measures that God blesses as they are of popery itself….

FINALLY.–This zealous adherence to particular forms and modes of doing things, which has led the church to resist innovations in measures, savors strongly of fanaticism. And what is not a little singular, is that fanatics of this stamp are always the first to cry out “fanaticism.” What is that but fanaticism in the Roman Catholic Church, that causes them to adhere with such pertinacity to their particular modes, and forms, and ceremonies, and fooleries? They act as if all these things were established by divine authority; as if there were a “Thus saith the Lord” for every one of them. Now we justly style this a spirit of fanaticism, and esteem it worthy of rebuke. But it is just as absolutely fanatical, for the Presbyterian Church, or any other church, to be sticklish for her particular forms, and to act as if they were established by divine authority. The fact is, that God has established, in no church, any particular form, or manner of worship, for promoting the interests of religion. The scriptures are entirely silent on these subjects, under the gospel dispensation, and the church is left to exercise her own discretion in relation to all such matters. And I hope it will not be thought unkind, when I say again, that to me it appears, that the unkind, angry zeal for a certain mode and manner of doing things, and the overbearing, exterminating cry against new measures, SAVORS STRONGLY OF FANATICISM.

Thesis XV.

In the eleventh place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the Gospel is turned into a preaching of repentance.

To understand these words correctly, you will have to bear in mind that the term Gospel has a usage similar to that of the term repentance. In the Holy Scriptures the term repentance is used in a wide and in a narrow sense. In the wide sense it signifies conversion viewed in its entirety, embracing knowledge of sin, contrition, and faith. This meaning occurs in Acts 2, 38, where we read: “Repent and be baptized every one of you,” etc. The apostle does not say: “Repent and believe.” Accordingly, he refers to conversion in its entirety, inclusive of faith. Nor could he have said: “Be contrite and then be baptized.” He must have conceived of contrition as joined with faith. What he means to say is this: If you acknowledge your sins and believe in the Gospel which I have just preached to you, then be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.

The term repentance is used in a narrow sense to signify the knowledge of sin and heartfelt sorrow and contrition. In Mark 1, 15 we read: “Repent ye and believe the Gospel.” In this statement Jesus evidently did not include faith in repentance, otherwise his statement would be tautological.

There is a similar usage as regards the term Gospel; sometimes it is used in a wide, then again in a narrow meaning. Rom. 2, 16 we read: In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my Gospel. Here the apostle cannot refer to the Gospel in the narrow sense, for that has nothing to do with the Judgment, since Scripture declares: “He that believeth on Him is not condemned” — “shall not come into condemnation.” John 3, 18; 5, 24. By Gospel in this text, Paul understands the doctrine which he had proclaimed and which was composed of both Law and Gospel.

The term Gospel is unquestionably used in the narrow sense in Rom. 1, 16: I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. It is called, first, a Gospel of Jesus Christ; next, a Gospel that saves all that believe it. No such demand is made upon us by the Law, which requires that we keep it. Accordingly, the apostle is here speaking of God’s gift to the world and of faith, hence of the Gospel in the narrow sense, to the exclusion of the Law.

…The worst of these fanatics [followers of Melanchthon] was Caspar Cruciger the Younger. His father had been an excellent theologian, and Luther had at one time desired him to become his successor. But this son of old Cruciger did not turn out well; he wrote a treatise on justification in 1570 in which he said: “In this office [of the Gospel] God wants to terrify men by the preaching of repentance, which reveals both, all the sins that are set forth in the Law and this saddest of all sins which is really shown up in the Gospel, namely, the failure to know the Son of God and the contempt of Him.” Though we must conclude that contempt of the Gospel is the most horrible sin, still it is not the Gospel that teaches it, but it is an inference drawn from the Gospel. Certainly I can, by inverting it, turn the most comforting doctrine into a comfortless one. No; it is the Law that reproves unbelief. Where? In the First Commandment, which signifies that “we are to fear, love, andtrust in God above all things.” Unbelief, no matter in what relation it is viewed, is forbidden in the First Commandment. When I commit the sin of unbelief, I sin because I break the Law, which requires me to trust in God and believe His Word.

For a time, [Nisbet] served as the pastor of the First Presbyterian church on the square of Carlisle, in addition to his educational responsibilities. Once during that ministry, a woman of the congregation announced to him that she thought she could preach as well as he did. So Dr. Nisbet told her that before she would be allowed into the pulpit, she would have to know how to preach. She readily agreed, and was instructed that the average sermon had an introduction, a three point outline, and an application. When she asked him for a text, he responded with Proverbs 21:9, which states, “It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, then with a brawling woman in a wide house.” The woman was indignant, asking whether the pastor thought she was such a woman. Dr. Nisbet replied, “Oh my dear, you are already at the application. You must go back first and deal with the introduction.”

I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to share a good joke, and introduce the readers of the ‘house to This Day in Presbyterian History. It’s only been running for 18 days now, so it’s not too late to catch up (starting with Jan 1, the anniversary of Machen’s death).

This Day in Presbyterian History is written by Rev. Dr. David T. Myers, son of Rev. Dr. David K. Myers (whose memoir I helped to publish). Another connection; Charles Nisbet emigrated from Scotland to become the first president of Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA; in the summer of 1992 I taught on the Dickinson Campus for CTY.

Today Finney lectures on three of his revivalistic techniques or “new measures.”  Maybe you didn’t know Old Testament festivals were “protracted meetings” and  baptism was the apostles’ “anxious seat?”  If not, maybe you’re one of those nit-picky Presbyterian Old Schoolers we’ll read about next week.  For now just put that peevishness away, because this is “all philosophical, and according to the laws of the mind.”

Lecture XIV: Measures to Promote Revivals

. . .There are three things in particular which have chiefly attracted remark, and therefore I shall speak of them. They are Anxious Meetings, Protracted Meetings, and the Anxious Seat. These are all opposed, and are called new measures.

(1.) Anxious Meetings. The first that I ever heard of under that name, was in New England, where they were appointed for the purpose of holding personal conversation with anxious sinners, and to adapt instruction to the cases of individuals, so as to lead them immediately to Christ. The design of them is evidently philosophical, but they have been opposed because they were new. There are two modes of conducting an anxious meeting, either of which may effect the object of them.

(a.) By spending a few moments in personal conversation and learning the state of mind of each individual, and then in a address to the whole, take up all their errors and remove their difficulties together.

(b.) By going round to each, and taking up each individual case, and going over the whole ground with each one separately, and getting them to promise to give up their hearts to God. Either way they are important, and have been found most successful in practice. But multitudes have objected to them because they were new.

(2.) Protracted Meetings. These are not new, but have always been practiced, in some form or other, ever since there was a church on earth. The Jewish festivals were nothing else but protracted meetings. In regard to the manner, they were conducted differently from what they are now. But the design was the same, to devote a series of days to religious services, in order to make a more powerful impression of divine things upon the minds of the people. All denominations of Christians, when religion prospers among them, hold protracted meetings. In Scotland they used to begin on Thursday at all their communion seasons, and continue until after the Sabbath. The Episcopalians, Baptists, and Methodists all hold protracted meetings. Yet now in our day they have been opposed, particularly among Presbyterians, and called new measures, and regarded as fraught with all manner of evil, notwithstanding they have been so manifestly and so extensively blessed.  . . .

(3.) The Anxious Seat. By this I mean the appointment of some particular seat in the place of meeting, where the anxious may come and be addressed particularly, and be made subjects of prayer, and sometimes be conversed with individually. Of late this measure has met with more opposition than any of the others. What is the great objection? I cannot see it. The design of the anxious seat is undoubtedly philosophical, and according to the laws of mind. It has two bearings:

1. When a person is seriously troubled in mind, everybody knows that there is a powerful tendency to conceal it. When a person is borne down with a sense of his condition, if you can get him willing to have it known, if you can get him to break away from the chains of pride, you have gained an important point towards his conversion. This is agreeable to the philosophy of the human mind. How many thousands are there who will bless God to eternity, that when pressed by the truth they were ever brought to take this step, by which they threw off the idea that it was a dreadful thing to have anybody know that they were serious about their souls.

2. Another bearing of the anxious seat, is to detect deception and delusion, and thus prevent false hopes. It has been opposed on the ground, that it was calculated to create delusion and false hopes. But this objection is unreasonable. The truth is the other way. Suppose I were preaching on the subject of Temperance, and that I should first show the evils of intemperance, and bring up the drunkard and his family, and show the various evils produced, till every heart is beating with emotion. Then I portray the great danger of moderate drinking, and show how it leads to intoxication and ruin, and that there is no safety but in TOTAL ABSTINENCE, till a hundred hearts are ready to say, “I will never drink another drop of ardent spirit in the world; if I do, I shall expect to find a drunkard’s grave.” Now, I stop short, and let the pledge be circulated, and everyone that is fully resolved is ready to sign it. But how many will begin to draw back and hesitate, when you begin to call on them to sign a pledge of total abstinence. One says to himself “Shall I sign it, or not? I thought my mind was made up, but this signing a pledge never to drink again, I do not know about that.” Thus you see that when a person is called upon to give a pledge, if he is found not to be decided, he makes it manifest that he was not sincere. That is, he never came to that resolution on the subject, which could be relied on to control his future life. Just so with the awakened sinner. Preach to him, and at the moment he thinks he is willing to do anything; he thinks he is determined to serve the Lord; but bring him to the test, call on him to do one thing, to take one step that shall identify him with the people of God, or cross his pride–his pride comes up, and he refuses; his delusion is brought out, and he finds himself a lost sinner still; whereas, if you had not done it, he might have gone away flattering himself that he was a Christian. If you say to him, “There is the anxious seat, come out and avow your determination to be on the Lord’s side,” and if he is not willing to do so small a thing as that, then he is not willing to do anything, and there he is, brought out before his own conscience. It uncovers the delusion of the human heart, and prevents a great many spurious conversions, by showing those who might otherwise imagine themselves willing to do anything for Christ, that in fact they are willing to do nothing.

The church has always felt it necessary to have something of the kind to answer this very purpose. In the days of the apostles baptism answered this purpose. The gospel was preached to the people, and then all those who were willing to be on the side of Christ were called on to be baptized. It held the precise place that the anxious seat does now, as a public manifestation of their determination to be Christians. …

Now what objection is there against taking a particular seat, or rising up, or going into the lecture-room? They all mean the same thing, when properly conducted. And they are not novelties in principle at all. The thing has always been done in substance. In Joshua’s day, he called on the people to decide what they would do, and they spoke right out in the meeting, “We will serve the Lord; the Lord our God will we serve, and his voice will we obey.”

Jesus Christ had said to His disciples, not only: “Ye are the light of the world,” but also: “Ye are the salt of the earth”; that is, you are not only to proclaim the truth, but you are also to salt the world with its sins and errors; you are to sprinkle sharp salt on the world to stay its corruption. … Preachers of the right character remember that the Church is not a kingdom that can be built up in peace; for it is located within the domain of the devil, who is the prince of this world. Accordingly, the Church has no choice but to be at war. It is ecclesia militans, the Church Militant, and will remain such until the blessed end. Wherever a Church is seen to be, not ecclesia militans, but ecclesia quiescens, a Church at ease, that — you may rely on it! — is a false Church.

But remember in this connection that errors are the more harmful, the more they are concealed. It is therefore necessary that they be dragged into the light and fought. Of this duty we are reminded by our

Thesis XIV.

In the tenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when faith is required as a condition of justification and salvation, as if a person were righteous in the sight of God and saved, not only by faith, but also on account of his faith, for the sake of his faith, and in view of his faith.

Suppose you say to a beggar who approaches you asking alms that you will give him something on one condition, and on his asking you what the condition is, you would tell him the condition is that he accept your gift. Would he not consider your condition a hoax and say, laughing: “Why, most gladly I shall meet your condition, and the more you give, the greater will become my joy in taking it”? True, if a person refuses to believe, nobody can help him. But he must not say that grace was offered with a condition attached to it which he could not meet. God attaches no condition to His grace when He proffers it to a sinner and asks him to accept it.

A person teaching that “faith is a condition which the Gospel stipulates” makes the promises of the Gospel conditioned promises like those of the Law and removes the distinction between the Law and the Gospel. The Law promises no good thing except on condition that a person comply perfectly with its demands, while the Gospel promises everything unconditionally as a free gift. In short, the promises of grace demand nothing of man. When the Lord says, “Believe,” He does not utter a demand, but issues an urgent invitation to man to take, to apprehend, to appropriate what He is giving, without asking anything in return for it. The gift must, of course, be accepted. Non-acceptance forfeits the gift, but not because there was a condition attached to it.

Gerhard writes: “The term ‘if’ is either etiological or syllogistic; that is, it signifies either a cause or a consequence. In the preaching of the Law the statement: ‘If you do this, you shall live,’ the term is etiological; it signifies the cause, or reason; for obedience is the reason why eternal life is given to those who keep the Law. But in evangelical promises the term ‘if’ is syllogistic; it signifies a consequence; for it relates to the mode of application which God has appointed for these promises, and that is faith alone.”

To cite Gerhard once more, he writes (Loc. de Justific., § 179): “It is one thing to be justified on account of faith and another to be justified by faith. In the former view, faith is the meritorious, in the latter, the instrumental cause. [There must be an organ by which I come into the possession and enjoyment of what some one offers me.] We are not justified on account of faith as a merit, but by faith which lays hold of the merit of Christ.” It is not my own merit that saves me, but the merit of Christ.

However, as regards the simile that has been adduced, the old axiom must be noted: Omne simile est dissimile (In every simile there is some element of dissimilarity). Otherwise it would not be a simile, but identity. When I hold out my hand, I make a motion. This point must not be pressed in the case of man’s faith. For it is God who prompts the holding out of the hand after He has prepared a sinner for the Gospel by means of the Law. Of course, God cannot prompt a person who continues, and is determined to continue, in his sinful life and makes a mockery of God’s Word.

Is there any renovative feature at all — actual, consequential, conditional, potential — is there any renovative feature in Calvin’s doctrine of justification? Absolutely not. He is what makes the Roman Catholic tradition furious, because here you have a person who affirms a gratuitous, forensic imputation of righteousness as the sole ground for the believer’s justification, received by faith alone.

What grabbed me here is the use of the word gratuitous. I had never before made the etymological connection between gratuitous and gratia, as in sola (it makes a little more sense when you include gratuity in the mix). Usually gratuitous is taken to mean something like arbitrary or reason-less. And given that we are Totally Depraved and Unconditionally Elected, can God’s grace be described any better way?

From now on, I’m going to be looking for ways to use gratuitous when others might use gracious…

Today we’ll learn that the preaching ministry has a goal, and that goal can be quantified.  So can wisdom.  Finney used “new measures” to gain converts,  so we’ll see how to skillfully use them at “anxious meetings.”  Hint: does a doctor write out a prescription before he meets his patient? And please don’t quote the Westminster Shorter Catechism when trying to win souls.  Did you know that Christ’s ministry was successful “given the circumstances”? We’ll also consider proper pastoral education – which should include instruction on the “laws of the mind” – and see that profanity once saved a soul.  And always remember: if a minister is successful, don’t find fault with God who made him successful.

Finney Lecture XI: A Wise Minister Will Be Successful

TEXT. –He that winneth souls is wise. –PROVERBS xi. 30.

I PREACHED last Friday evening from the same text, on the method of dealing with sinners by private Christians. My object at this time is to take up the more public means of grace, with particular reference to the DUTIES OF MINISTERS.

The object of the ministry is to get all the people to feel that the devil has no right to rule this world, but that they ought all to give themselves to God, and vote in the Lord Jesus Christ as the governor of the universe. Now what shall be done? What measures shall we take? Says one, “Be sure and have nothing that is new.” Strange! The object of our measures is to gain attention, and you must have something new. As sure as the effect of a measure becomes stereotyped, it ceases to gain attention, and then you must try something new. You need not make innovations in everything. But whenever the state of things is such that anything more is needed, it must be something new, otherwise it will fail. A minister should never introduce innovations that are not called for. If he does they will embarrass him. He cannot alter the Gospel; that remains the same. But new measures are necessary, from time to time, to awaken attention and bring the Gospel to bear upon the public mind. And then a minister ought to know how to introduce new things, so as to create the least possible resistance or reaction. Mankind are fond of form in religion. They love to have their religious duties stereotyped, so as to leave them at ease; and they are therefore inclined to resist any new movement designed to rouse them up to action and feeling. Hence it is all-important to introduce new things wisely, so as not to give needless occasion or apology for resistance.

…A minister once appointed an anxious meeting, and went to attend it, and instead of going round to the individuals, he began to ask them the catechism, “Wherein doth Christ execute the office of a priest?” About as much in point to a great many of their minds as anything else.

I know a minister who held an anxious meeting, and went to attend it with a written discourse which he had prepared for the occasion. Just as wise as it would be if a physician, going out to visit his patients, should sit down at leisure and write all the prescriptions before he had seen them. A minister needs to know the state of mind of the individuals, before he can know what truth will be proper and useful to administer. I say these things, not because I love to do it, but because truth, and the object before me, requires them to be said. And such instances as I have mentioned are by no means rare.

…1. This is plainly asserted in the text. “He that winneth souls is wise.” That is, if a man wins souls, he does skillfully adapt means to the end, which is, to exercise wisdom. He is the more wise, by how much the greater is the number of sinners that he saves. A blockhead may, indeed, now and then stumble on such truth or such a manner of exhibiting it, as to save a soul. It would be a wonder indeed if any minister did not sometimes have something in his sermons that would meet the case of some individual. But the amount of wisdom is to be decided, “other things being equal,” by the number of cases in which he is successful in converting sinners.

…3. Success in saving souls is evidence that a man understands the Gospel, and understands human nature, that he knows how to adapt means to his end, that he has common sense, and that he has that kind of tact, that practical discernment, to know how to get at people. And if his success is extensive, it shows that he knows how to deal with a great variety of characters, in a great variety of circumstances, who are yet all the enemies of God, and to bring them to Christ. To do this requires great wisdom. And the minister who does it shows that he is wise.
…OBJECTION.–There are many who feel an objection against this subject, arising out of the view they have taken of the ministry of Jesus Christ. They ask us, “What will you say about the ministry of Jesus Christ, was not he wise?” I answer, Yes, infinitely wise. But in regard to his alleged want of success in the conversion of sinners, you will observe the following things:

(1.) That his ministry was vastly more successful than is generally supposed. We read in one of the sacred writers, that after his resurrection and before his ascension “he was seen by above five hundred brethren at once.” If so many as five hundred brethren were found assembled together at one place, we see there must have been a vast number of them scattered over the country.

(2.) Another circumstance to be observed is, that his public ministry was very short, less than three years.

…Many ministers who have little or no success, are hiding themselves behind the ministry of Jesus Christ, as if he was an unsuccessful preacher. Whereas, in fact, he was eminently successful, considering the circumstances in which he labored.
…2. An unsuccessful minister may be pious as well as learned, and yet not wise. It is unfair to infer because a minister is unsuccessful, that therefore he is a hypocrite. There may be something defective in his education, or in his mode of viewing a subject, or of exhibiting it, or such a want of common sense, as will defeat his labors, and prevent his success in winning souls, while he himself may be saved–”yet so as by fire.”

…There is a grand defect in educating ministers. Education ought to be such, as to prepare young men for the peculiar work to which they are destined. But instead of this, they are educated for any thing else. The grand mistake is this. They direct the mind too much to irrelevant matters, which are not necessary to be attended to. In their courses of study, they carry the mind over too wide a field, which diverts their attention from the main thing, and so they get cold in religion, and when they get through, instead of being fitted for their work, they are unfitted for it. Under pretence of disciplining the mind, they in fact scatter the attention, so that when they come to their work, they are awkward, and know nothing how to take hold, or how to act, to win souls.

…Ministers should be educated to know what the Bible is, and what the human mind is, and know how to bring one to bear on the other. They should be brought into contact with mind, and made familiar with all the aspects of society. They should have the Bible in one hand, and the map of the human mind in the other, and know how to use the truth for the salvation of men.

…But when the blessing evidently follows the introduction of the measure itself, the proof is unanswerable, that the measure is wise. It is profane to say that such a measure will do more hurt than good. God knows about that. His object is, to do the greatest amount of good possible. And of course he will not add his blessing to a measure that will do more hurt than good. He may sometimes withhold his blessing from a measure that is calculated to do some good because it will be at the expense of a greater good. But he never will bless a pernicious proceeding. There is no such thing as deceiving God in the matter. He knows whether a given measure is, on the whole, wise, or not. He may bless a course of labours notwithstanding some unwise or injurious measures. But if he blesses the measure itself, it is rebuking God to pronounce it unwise. He who undertakes to do this, let him look to the matter.

10. It is evident that much fault has been found with measures, which have been pre-eminently and continually blessed of God for the promotion of revivals. We know it is said that the horrid oaths of a profane swearer have been the means of awakening another less hardened sinner. But this is a rare case. God does not usually make such a use of profanity. But if a measure is continually or usually blessed, let the man who thinks he is wiser than God, call it in question. TAKE CARE how you find fault with God!

Thesis XIII.

In the ninth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when one makes an appeal to believe or at least help towards that end, instead of preaching faith into a person’s heart by laying the Gospel promises before him.

This thesis does not score as an error the demand on the part of the pastor, be it ever so urgent, that his hearers believe the Gospel. That demand has been made by all the prophets, all the apostles, yea, by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. When demanding faith, we do not lay down a demand of the Law, but issue the sweetest invitation, practically saying to our hearers: “Come; for all things are now ready.” Luke 14, 17. When I invite a halfstarved person to sit down to a well-furnished board and to help himself to anything he likes, I do not expect him to tell me that he will take no orders from me. Even so the demand to believe is to be understood not as an order of the Law, but as an invitation of the Gospel.

The error against which this thesis is directed is this, that man can produce faith in himself. Such a demand would be an order of the Law and turn faith into a work of man. That would be plainly mingling Law and Gospel.

Suppose you were picturing to a horde of Indians the Lord Jesus, telling them that He is the Son of God who came down from heaven to redeem men from their sins by taking the wrath of God upon Himself, overcoming death, devil, and hell in their stead and opening heaven to all men, and that every man can now be saved by merely accepting what our Lord Jesus Christ has brought to us. Suppose that you were suddenly struck down by the deadly bullet of a hostile Indian lying in ambush. It is possible that, dying, you would leave behind you a small congregation of Indians though you may not even once have pronounced the word faith to them. For every one in that audience who did not wantonly and wilfully resist divine grace would have to reason that he, too, has been redeemed.

On the other hand, you may spend a lot of time telling men that they must believe if they wish to be saved, and your hearers may get the impression that something is required of them which they must do. They will begin to worry whether they will be able to do it, and when they have tried to do it, whether it is exactly the thing that is required of them. Thus you may have preached a great deal about faith without delivering a real sermon on faith.

Melanchthon taught: 1. “There is, and must be, a reason in men why some are predestinated unto salvation while others are reprobated and damned.” … 2. “Since the promises of grace are universal and there cannot be contradictory wills in God, there must necessarily be some cause in us that accounts for the salvation of some and of the reprobation of others; in other words, there must be in each a different kind of action.”

The different kind of action is not the cause why any person finds himself in heaven. True, grace is universal. The reason why some are reprobated is that they wilfully resist grace. Here reason enters in with the claim that accordingly there must be a cause in the others why they are saved, and this must be because they did not resist grace. But we are at this point confronted with an inscrutable mystery, and any one who is unwilling to acknowledge this mystery is abandoning the Christian religion, the central teaching of which is that God has revealed to man a way of salvation which no man’s reason could have discovered nor is able to comprehend.

Charles Finney, 1792-1875

Continuing our look at the Second Great Awakening, today we’ll consider excerpts from Charles Finney’s Lecture 1: What a Revival Is.

There is so little principle in the church, so little firmness and stability of purpose, that unless the religious feelings are awakened and kept excited, counter worldly feeling and excitement will prevail, and men will not obey God. They have so little knowledge, and their principles are so weak, that unless they are excited, they will go back from the path of duty, and do nothing to promote the glory of God. The state of the world is still such, and probably will be till the millennium is fully come, that religion must be mainly promoted by means of revivals. How long and how often has the experiment been tried, to bring the church to act steadily for God, without these periodical excitements. Many good men have supposed, and still suppose, that the best way to promote religion, is to go along uniformly, and gather in the ungodly gradually, and without excitement. But however sound such reasoning may appear in the abstract, facts demonstrate its futility. If the church were far enough advanced in knowledge, and had stability of principle enough to keep awake, such a course would do; but the church is so little enlightened, and there are so many counteracting causes, that she will not go steadily to work without a special interest being awakened.

…But as yet the state of the Christian world is such, that to expect to promote religion without excitements is unphilosophical and absurd. The great political, and other worldly excitements that agitate Christendom, are all unfriendly to religion, and divert the mind from the interests of the soul. Now these excitements can only be counteracted by religious excitements. And until there is religious principle in the world to put down irreligious excitements, it is vain to try to promote religion, except by counteracting excitements. This is true in philosophy, and it is a historical fact.

…If Christians have deep feeling on the subject of religion themselves, they will produce deep feeling wherever they go. And if they are cold, or light and trifling, they inevitably destroy all deep feeling, even in awakened sinners.

…And yet some people are terribly alarmed at all direct efforts to promote a revival, and they cry out, “You are trying to get up a revival in your own strength. Take care, you are interfering with the sovereignty of God. Better keep along in the usual course, and let God give a revival when he thinks it is best. God is a sovereign, and it is very wrong for you to attempt to get up a revival, just because you think a revival is needed.” This is just such preaching as the devil wants. And men cannot do the devil’s work more effectually than by preaching up the sovereignty of God, as a reason why we should not put forth efforts to produce a revival.

…You see the error of those who are beginning to think that religion can be better promoted in the world without revivals, and who are disposed to give up all efforts to produce religious awakenings. Because there are evils arising in some instances out of great excitements on the subject of religion, they are of opinion that it is best to dispense with them altogether. This cannot, and must not be. True, there is danger of abuses. In cases of great religious as well as all other excitements, more or less incidental evils may be expected of course. But this is no reason why they should be given up. The best things are always liable to abuses. Great and manifold evils have originated in the providential and moral governments of God. But these foreseen perversions and evils were not considered a sufficient reason for giving them up. For the establishment of these governments was on the whole the best that could be done for the production of the greatest amount of happiness. So in revivals of religion, it is found by experience, that in the present state of the world, religion cannot be promoted to any considerable extent without them. The evils which are sometimes complained of, when they are real, are incidental, and of small importance when compared with the amount of good produced by revivals. The sentiment should not be admitted by the church for a moment, that revivals may be given up. It is fraught with all that is dangerous to the interests of Zion, is death to the cause of missions, and brings in its train the damnation of the world.

See the full lecture here.