From Finney's Systematic Theology:
You were made to think. It will do you
good to think; to develop your powers by study. God designed
that religion should require thought, intense thought, and
should thoroughly develop our powers of thought. (2)
If my brother is inquiring after truth, I will, by the grace
of God, “hear with both ears, and then judge.” But I will
not promise to attend to all that cavillers may say, nor to
notice what those impertinent talkers and writers may say or
write who must have controversy. But to all honest inquirers
after truth I would say, Hail, my brother! Let us be
thorough. Truth shall do us good. (3)
I have not yet been able to stereotype my theological views,
and have ceased to expect ever to do so. The idea is
preposterous. None but an omniscient mind can continue to
maintain a precise identity of views and opinions. Finite
minds, unless they are asleep or stultified by prejudice,
must advance in knowledge.… True Christian consistency
does not consist in stereotyping our opinions and views, and
in refusing to make any improvement lest we should be guilty
of change, but it consists in holding our minds open to
receive the rays of truth from every quarter and in changing
our views and language and practice as often and as fast as
we can obtain further information. I call this Christian
consistency, because this course alone accords with a
Christian profession. A Christian profession implies the
profession of candor and of a disposition to know and obey
all truth. It must follow that Christian consistency implies
continued investigation and change of views and practice in
conformity with increasing knowledge. No Christian,
therefore, and no theologian should be afraid to change his
views, his language, or his practices in conformity with
increasing light. (3)
Free will implies the power of originating and deciding our
own choices, and of exercising our own sovereignty, in every
instance of choice upon moral questions—of deciding or
choosing in conformity with duty or otherwise in all cases
of moral obligation. That man cannot be under a moral
obligation to perform an absolute impossibility, is a first
truth of reason.… Unless the will is free, man has no
freedom; and if he has no freedom he is not a moral agent,
that is, he is incapable of moral action and also of moral
character. (33)
As the great law of benevolence, or universal good willing,
demands the existence of human governments, all men are
under a perpetual and unalterable moral obligation to aid in
their establishment and support. In popular or elective
governments, every man having a right to vote, every human
being who has moral influence, is bound to exert that
influence in the promotion of virtue and happiness. And as
human governments are plainly indispensable to the highest
good of man, they are bound to exert their influence to
secure a legislation that is in accordance with the law of
God. The obligation of human beings to support and obey
human governments, while they legislate upon the principles
of the moral law, is an unalterable as the moral law itself.
(232)
It does not follow that because you may not take it upon
yourself to redress your own wrongs by a summary and
personal infliction of punishment upon the transgressor,
that therefore human governments may not punish them. All
private wrongs are a public injury; and irrespective of any
particular regard to your personal interest, magistrates are
bound to punish crime for the public good. While God has
expressly forbidden you to redress your own wrongs, by
administering personal and private chastisement, He has
expressly recognized the right, and made it the duty of
public magistrates to punish crimes. (233)
In a popular government, politics are an important part of
religion. No man can possibly be benevolent or religious, to
the full extent of his obligations, without concerning
himself, to a greater or less extent, with the affairs of
human government. It is true, that Christians have something
else to do than to go with a party to do evil, or to meddle
with politics in a selfish or ungodly manner. But they are
bound to meddle with politics in popular governments,
because they are bound to seek the universal good of all
men; and this is one department of human interests
materially affecting all their higher interests. (234)
It is admitted that selfish men need, and must feel the
restraints of law; but yet it is contended that Christians
should have no part in restraining them by law. But suppose
the wicked should agree among themselves to have no law, and
therefore should not attempt to restrain themselves, nor
each other by law; would it be neither the right nor the
duty of Christians to attempt their restraint, through the
influence of wholesome government? It would be strange that
selfish men should need the restraints of law, and yet that
Christians should have no right to meet this necessity by
supporting governments that will restrain them. It is right
and best that there should be law. It is even absolutely
necessary that there should be law. Universal benevolence
demands it; can it then be wrong in Christians to have
anything to do with it? (235-236)
It follows that no government is lawful or innocent that
does not recognize the moral law as the only universal law,
and God as the Supreme Lawgiver and Judge, to whom nations
in their national capacity, as well as individuals, are
amenable. The moral law of God is the only law of
individuals and of nations, and nothing can be rightful
government but such as is established and administered with
a view to its support. (236) |
