Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Timmy Brister Bristling From "Finneyitis"

Timmy Brister is a student at Southern Seminary who never seems to cease attacking the SBC and its churches, pastors, and evangelists while at the same time these same churches, pastors, and evangelists pay much of his tutition through the Cooperative Program. Does the word, "ungrateful," come to mind?

In this article, Brother Bob Ross finds Timmy whining about Charles Finney. Having previously attacked Billy Graham, Timmy especially seems to enjoy attacking evangelists.

For more on the ungrateful and theologically confused Mr. Brister, see

Timmy Brister's Bristlings,

More Blundering From Brister,

Timmy Brister's Baloney,

Bend it Like Timmy Brister!,

Timmy Brister Attends Billy Graham School Yet Attacks Billy Graham's Methods, and

Timmy Brister Attacks Altar Calls in Southern Baptist Churches.


Bob to Charles:

"I am intrigued and alarmed by the fact that Finney's legacy has been so enduring," complains Timmy Brister, the blogging poster-boy of the Southern Seminary student bloggers. [Dec. 3, 2007,]

Timmy seems to have a bad case of "Finneyitis," and from time-to-time it breaks out, causing the compunction to drag the carcase of Charles G. Finney into the public square, tie it to a stake, give it a fresh 40 lashes save one, and then torch it for all the world to see what one deserves who does not lockstep to Presbyterian Hybrid Calvinism.

Timmy is so alarmed that he once again reflects upon the leadership of Dr. R. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Seminary. When Hybrid Calvinists want to emphasize that they are "not opposed" to evangelism, some -- including Mohler -- often are wont to point to the "Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism and Church Growth" at SBTS for which Mohler claims credit: [

Not so Timmy. On the contrary, Timmy is apparently "alarmed" that Mohler and SBTS continue to help perpetuate Finney's legacy thru Billy Graham. He opines --

"Among the 20th century evangelistic practices, I would argue that no other individual had more influence upon Southern Baptists than Charles Finney, especially after they had been popularized under the ministries of Billy Sunday and Billy Graham."

Since so many Hybrid Calvinists say they were in some manner influenced to come to Christ thru such "evangelistic practices" which they now repudiate, I wonder if Timmy might also be of that number? Did he at one time "walk the aisle" to profess faith in Christ -- or was he one of the more fortunate of the "elect" who was "born again" in infancy as the Presbyterians teach?

If the Presbyterians and the Presbyterian sympathizers such as Timmy Brister have a "bone to pick" with Finney, let them remember that Finney was a creation of sorts of the Presbyterians themselves, much like Alexander Campbell and Joe Smith. The unscriptural Hybrid Calvinism of "born again before faith" repelled Finney, and he went forth preaching among the Presbyterian churches which were filled with "regenerated" infants, and a great number of these "elect covenant children" made professions of faith in Christ.

Had it not been for the heresy of the Presbyterians, we might never have heard of Charles G. Finney, and would have been spared the bristling of "Finneyitis" by Brister.



At Wednesday, December 05, 2007 8:00:00 PM, Blogger Rev. said...

So, does the Calvinist Flyswatter actually "endorse" a HERETIC?!? While Brister, and many others, take aim at Finney for his methodology, the real problem with Finney is his theology. The man denied justification by faith alone. Is that not a denial of the Gospel? Finney even went so far as to say that glorified saints could fall from salvation. Do you not take issue with that?

At Saturday, December 15, 2007 12:03:00 PM, Anonymous Bob said...


Rev. said...
While Brister, and many others, take aim at Finney for his methodology, the real problem with Finney is his theology.

Finney has been broadly accused by the Hybrids of creating the "invitation system." We have refuted this error on this blog. We have not concerned ourselves with his theology, but with his being the "whipping boy" for the "invitation system."

You can search our Archives for our refutation of this error.

As for other theological issues, we do not endorse any heresy of Presbyterian Finney nor the heresies of other Pedobaptists such as Shedd, Berkhof, Sproul, Frame, Michael Horton, and others of the Hybrid Calvinist "Reformed" category.

Also, see our website at -- -- "Was C. H. Spurgeon the Innovator of the Modern Public Church Invitation?"

At Saturday, December 15, 2007 6:09:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hogwash. Finney was far more Orthodox than the dead-Orthodox of his day, and God used him far more than that lazy bunch who did nothing but wait for "Sovereign" grace to zap them before they did anything. Read the man's Systematic Theology, if you can, and then comment. Finney had a problem with certain ASPECTS of forensic views, as many have had since, because it seems to go far beyond what Paul said, and tends to anti-nomianism. These are legitimate concerns.

At Monday, December 17, 2007 10:45:00 PM, Blogger Rev. said...


I *have* read Finney's systematic, not to mention his Memoirs. Throughout all of his discussions related to imputation he insists repeatedly that neither guilt nor merit can be imputed from one person to another. He argues, therefore, that the righteousness of Christ cannot provide any ground for the justification of sinners.
Furthermore, he argues that the "ultimate ground of justification" for believers "is not founded in Christ's literally suffering the exact penalty of the law for them, and in this sense literally purchasing their justification and eternal salvation." Finney lists several "necessary conditions" for justification, including: Christ's death (though Finney's view of the atonement is identical to that of the Socinians), the Christian's own faith, repentance, sanctification, and an ongoing obedience to the law. That is not evangelical orthodoxy by any means. Denying sola fide is only orthodox if you are Roman Catholic.

To which "lazy bunch" do you refer? Edwards? Whitefield? Harris? Carey? Nettleton? Davies? Spurgeon?

At Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:33:00 AM, Anonymous Bob L. Ross said...

Rev. said...

I *have* read Finney's systematic, not to mention his Memoirs.

If you have read these, and if you have also read the Flyswatter for very long, then it is rather inexcusable of you to ask us if we "endorse" Finney on any of alleged erroneous teachings in the theological category. I have stated again and again and again that I hold to the Baptist Confession of Faith as a good summary of biblical teachings.

What we have emphasized regarding Finney is that HE DID NOT INVENT THE PUBLIC INVITATION. The fact is, he used what was called "the anxious seat" and this differs considerably from a Baptist public invitation.

The almost universal "Reformed" notion that public invitations "originated with Charles G. Finney" is just another one of the "Reformed" errors strewed around in their writings and on the Internet.

What appears to be the obvious purpose for this "Reformed" strawman is to endeavor to discredit public invitations on account of Finney's theology, which is viewed by "Reformed" writers as aberrant. This is not only historically erroneous, but it is also flawed in logic. It is similar to the logic of some who would discredit Calvinism due to Calvin's involvement in the burning of Servetus.


Post a Comment

<< Home