1. [Link]

com/2009/07/22/charles-g-finney-heretic-or-man-of-god-part-i/
CHARLES G. FINNEY: Heretic or Man of God? Part I

* It is the moral law that rules man’s actions—the actions of a

man of free will and free will only.

Finney believed that man not only has a free will, but that
the sin of Adam did not effect man in his nature at all. The
sin of Adam was only a bad example for us. Adam had no
nature of sin and neither do we. Thus, man is born with a will
that is totally free and each man begins life with a perfect
freedom from sin. But as a man’s life unfolds, though it could
be a possibility that he would never sin, all men do sin by
their own choice and not because of any nature of sin within
them.

* Sin then consists of violating the law of God – in choosing that

which sets aside the love of God and neighbor, whereby we
chose not to live for the Highest Being and good of the universe
but to live for ourselves.
And here is where the reality of sanctions come in –
penalties or rewards – in accordance with man’s compliance
or non-compliance to commit himself to the highest well-
being of God and the universe. It is impossible to sin while
this end of the highest well-being of God and the universe is
intended with all the heart and with all the soul. Thus, the
person with such a goal will be sinless, as he lives for this
goal at every moment of his life. Also, every moral agent can
know in every possible instance what is right and what is
wrong, so that he will never mistake his duty and
responsibility to God.

Therefore, again, there can and will be perfection, and by

perfection Finney means complete obedience to the law, as
he says that obedience to the moral law can never be
partial. One cannot partly obey or partly disobey the moral
law of God at the same time. This is to say that for
consecration (salvation) to be real it must be entire and
universal, which is to say again, that the choices have no
degree of conformity to the God’s moral law unless they are
always and necessarily wholly conformed to the moral law of
God

* Thus whenever a Christian sins he must for the time being

cease to be holy!
Yes, this is what Finney says – that whenever a man sins, he
must be condemned and he must incur the penalty of the
law of God. Otherwise, the law would have had to have been
abrogated, which can never be, since the law is constant
and demands perfection. Thus, a Christian is justified no
farther than he obeys the law, and he must be condemned
again when he disobeys the law. When a Christian sins, he
must repent and do his first works – come back to perfection
– or else he will perish. Until he repents (submits himself
anew to the keeping of the law with perfection), he cannot
be forgiven. In these respects the sinning Christian and the
unconverted sinner are precisely on the same ground – both
are breakers of the law of God and are therefore lost and
condemned by God.

* Perfection then is what the moral law of God requires of sinful

men in order that they might be or become Christians.

1. There can be no rule of duty but the moral law of

[Link] rejects faith alone as the way of salvation,
when he says that some have strangely dreamed that
the law of faith has superseded the moral law of God.
But this, he says, is a falsehood for nothing can be
virtue or true religion except obedience to the moral law
of God.

2. Repentance consists in the turning of the soul from a

state of selfishness to benevolence – of a turning from
disobedience to God’s law to obey it and to walk in
obedience to it.

Finney says that true repentance consists of the

following: an understanding of the nature of sin – it is a
spirit of self-seeking – selfishness; a turning from this
state to a state of consecration to God and the good of
the universe; a sorrow for past sin when it is
 remembered ; a universal outward reformation –
perfection; a hatred of sin; a self-loathing on account of
sin; a thorough reformation of heart and life which
includes a turning from selfishness to benevolence.

Entire obedience to the moral law does not require any change
in man’s nature.

This means that man has the natural powers within himself (aided
by the Holy Spirit) to keep the moral law of God, which also means
that regeneration cannot mean any inward change of a man’s
nature. Man’s human nature is not sinful and does not need an
inward change. Entire obedience to the law of God is possible only
as man consecrates all his power and appetites and susceptibilities
of the body and mind to the will and service of God.

2. [Link]
finneys-firm-rejection-of-imputation/

NOVEMBER 21, 2019BY REFORMED READER

Finney’s Firm Rejection

of Imputation
Charles Finney is well known for his part in the 19th century
American revivals. Obviously, Finney and these revivals are major
topics that many books have covered. But it is worth mentioning
that Finney did write a systematic theology where one can learn
what he himself taught. I don’t think it’s a good systematic
theology, but it is informative and helpful for thinking about the
history of American Christianity and theology.

For example, Finney very strongly rejected the Reformation

teaching that Christ’s obedience is imputed to the believer and
received by faith alone. In other words, he firmly denied the
imputation of Christ’s obedience. Here are his own words:

…Gospel justification is not to be regarded as a forensic

or judicial proceeding.

…Gospel justification is the justification of sinners; it is,

therefore, naturally impossible, and a most palpable
contradiction, to affirm that the justification of a sinner,
 or of one who has violated the law, is a forensic or
judicial justification.

…For sinners to be forensically pronounced just, is

impossible and absurd.

The doctrine of an imputed righteousness, or that

Christ’s obedience to the law was accounted as our
obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical
assumption; to wit, that Christ owed no obedience to the
law in his own person, and that therefore his obedience
was altogether a work of supererogation, and might be
made a substitute for our own obedience; that it might
be set down to our credit, because he did not need to
obey for himself.

…If Christ owed personal obedience to the moral law,

then his obedience could no more than justify himself. It
can never be imputed to us. He was bound for himself to
love God with all his heart, and soul, and mind, and
strength, and his neighbor as himself. He did no more
than this. He could do no more. It was naturally
impossible, then, for him to obey in our behalf. This
doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s obedience to the
moral law to us, is based upon the absurd assumptions,
(1.) That the moral law is founded in the arbitrary will of
God, and (2.) That of course, Christ, as God, owed no
obedience to it; both of which assumptions are absurd.
But if these assumptions are given up, what becomes of
the doctrine of an imputed righteousness, as a ground
of a forensic justification? “It vanishes into thin air.”

Finney wrote more on this topic; the above is a summary. And there
are many things that come to mind when I read this section of
Finney’s ST. While he does cite some Scripture references, he does
not do any exegetical work at all in his points. For example, he cites
Romans 5:9 in passing, which actually goes against his main
point: by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Furthermore, Finney misses major imputation/justification texts like
2 Cor. 5:21 and Phil. 3:9 (for just two examples).

Writing like Finney’s reminds me why I am Reformed – not because

it’s cool or trendy, but because Reformed theology is thoroughly
derived from Scripture and deep biblical exegesis. And thankfully
Finney was wrong! Thankfully I don’t have to rely on any aspect of
my obedience for justification. My hope is in the righteousness that
comes through faith in Christ: not my own righteousness, but the
righteousness of God in Christ (Phil. 2:9). All other ground is sinking
sand.
The above quotes are found in Charles Finney, Systematic
Theology, section 32.

3. [Link]
pelagianism-of-charles-finney/

Finney and Pelagianism

The charge of Pelagianism against Finney is an old one, going back

to the late 1820s. After the Troy, New York conference with
Nettleton in 1827, the charges flew. A deputation of “Old School”
ministers led by Lyman Beecher sat in on the Troy meetings of
Finney to observe the New Measures in action first hand. They
came away shocked. The main point of contention was that the New
Measures sought to produce conversions through the arm of flesh.
The power God was nowhere seen nor did it seem to be required. By
1835, Finney was being widely denounced as a Pelagian.

elagianism was developed in the early years of the 5th century by a

British monk Pelagius, a Christian moralist who lived in Rome.
Distressed by the moral laxity of Christians of his day, he urged
them to live moral lives and to reform themselves. Pelagius taught
that men could reform themselves and live free from sin if only they
wanted to. Human nature is sufficient as created by God to bring
about the desired moral changes. The will is always free to choose
good or evil without divine aid. The inherited Adamic sin nature is
denied. Adam’s fall and sin had no influence upon mankind. Adam’s
sin affected only himself. Pelagius also denied the need of internal
grace to keep God’s commands. Human nature was created good
and was endowed by its Creator with power to live a morally upright
life if a man desired to. “By his free will man is emancipated from
God.” This statement by the Pelagian Julian is the key to
Pelagianism, which is nothing more than a rationalized moralism
(David Broughton Knox, “Pelagianism”, Baker’s Dictionary of
Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960, pages 399-400).
It put a very strong stress on morality.

Does not this definition fit Finney? A sinner may be saved if he

desires and that desire is the only requirement for conversion. There
is no need for divine conviction. Finney strongly believed that
individuals possessed the power within themselves to make the
choice for Christ and for holy living. The issue comes down to “Do
you want to be saved or not? If so, just ‘decide for God’!” Here is
where the term “Make your decision for Christ” comes from.
Salvation is not a “decision”, it is a new birth, where the Holy Spirit
brings the repentant sinner to repentance and gives him a new
divine nature. Human responsibility is a factor of course, but the
Holy Spirit must be considered. Revivalism downplays the work of
the Spirit, dumping all of the responsibility on man, who may be
saved if only he will.

Salvation then is a mere decision, a proper use of the will. Finney

will continue to talk as though he believed in the divine work in
salvation but he cannot honestly believe it. Remember, we already
noted that Finney rejected any element of the supernatural in
revival. Revival was nothing more than the right use of appointed
means. Is not the new birth seen in the same light? If salvation is
simply the making of a “right choice” for God, is it supernatural? If it
is all of man, where does God fit in? If it is of man then it cannot be
a work of God, cannot be supernatural, cannot be a miracle. Finney
then robs the new birth of its miraculous nature as he does with
revival.

Emphasis on morality is also a dead giveaway for Pelagianism.

Morality is a manmade substitute for holiness. God is holy while man
is moral. Holiness is a state of being while morality stems from a
moral code of do’s and don’ts. Man can be moral without God. Some
sinners are more moral than Christians. Many sinners do not lie,
cheat or steal. This makes them moral but not holy.

Morality or Holiness?

In his theological writings, Finney is obsessed with the Moral Law of

God. He dwells much on “Moral Law” and “Moral Obligation”. He
spends much time discussing our moral obligations toward God and
how God operates according to a moral law. There is much
emphasis on morality but not as much corresponding discussion of
holiness. Finney neglected the holiness of God and the obligations of
Christians to live holy lives in favor of morality. Again, it is not hard
to understand why. Finney’s gospel is man-centered and dependent
upon human ability. Morality is man-generated goodness. Anyone
can be moral if he sets his mind to it. Sinners can be moral. All a
man has to do is quite drinking, swearing and beating his wife and
he may be considered as moral.

Emphasis on morality is also a dead giveaway for Pelagianism.

Morality is a manmade substitute for holiness. God is holy while man
is moral. Holiness is a state of being while morality stems from a
moral code of do’s and don’ts. Man can be moral without God. Some
sinners are more moral than Christians. Many sinners do not lie,
cheat or steal. This makes them moral but not holy.

Morality or Holiness?
In his theological writings, Finney is obsessed with the Moral Law of
God. He dwells much on “Moral Law” and “Moral Obligation”. He
spends much time discussing our moral obligations toward God and
how God operates according to a moral law. There is much
emphasis on morality but not as much corresponding discussion of
holiness. Finney neglected the holiness of God and the obligations of
Christians to live holy lives in favor of morality. Again, it is not hard
to understand why. Finney’s gospel is man-centered and dependent
upon human ability. Morality is man-generated goodness. Anyone
can be moral if he sets his mind to it. Sinners can be moral. All a
man has to do is quite drinking, swearing and beating his wife and
he may be considered as moral.

Later Doctrinal Problems: Sinless Perfection

Finney’s Pelagianism led him to greater errors later in life. After he

took the position of professor at Oberlin College, he fell into the pit
of total sanctification. It is easy to understand how he could adopt
this doctrine. Remember, Finney rejected the teaching of the
indwelling sin nature of man as being too “Calvinistic”. The root of
the sin problem in man lay in his will and not in his nature. All a
sinner needed to do for salvation was to “choose” to forsake sin and
stop sinning. He would “choose” against the world and “make a
decision for Christ”.

If salvation was to be understood as nothing greater than deciding

to turn on a light, then why would it be so hard for Christians to
attain total sanctification? Finney recognized that Christians were
still sinning after conversion. Why would this be so? Could not a
Christian make a simple exercise of his will and stop sinning as a
Christian? He did so at his conversion, why not so again for his
sanctification? Could he come into total obedience to the moral law
of God? Thus Finney began teaching that a Christian could grow in
grace to the point where he completely fulfilled the moral law of
God. This is called Oberlin Theology, after the school where Finney
served as a professor and later president.

4. [Link]
charles-finney-cornucopia-of-false-teaching-emotional-manipulation-
evangelical-influence-k7r6n

January 13, 2019

The Charles Finney Cornucopia of False
Doctrine, Pelagianism & Evangelical
Manipulation
If you've ever heard a preacher give an impassioned,
emotionally manipulative sermon that ends with an
irresistible plea to come forward and somehow make a
decision to become a Christian, you've witnessed the
lasting impact of Charles Finney. If you've ever felt
that the church was ineffective in building God's
Kingdom and what we really need is a big 'ole revival,
you've been influenced by Finney. In overly simplistic
terms, Finney was guilty of a form of "Pelagianism,"
which means he over-emphasized man's free will so
much that the sovereignty of God (and God's ability to
save) was virtually ignored. Finney believed that
Christians could accomplish God's work by simply
using their determination, so much so in fact, that he
practically left God out of the equation:

"A revival is not a miracle according to another definition of the

term "miracle” — something above the powers of nature. There is
nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature. It consists
entirely in the right exercise of the powers of nature. It is just that,
and nothing else. When mankind become religious, they are not
enabled to put forth exertions which they were unable before to put
forth. They only exert powers which they had before, in a different
way, and use them for the glory of God. A revival is not a miracle,
nor dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical
result of the right use of the constituted means — as much so as
any other effect produced by the application of means." -Charles
Finney, (Lectures on Revival, Lecture 1, 11)

Worse than that, was Finney's unorthodox view of the atonement of

Christ. Finney didn't believe in the substitutionary atonement,
instead he believed that Christ's death on the cross was simply
demonstrating obedience to God. Since Jesus was obedient enough
to go all the way to death on the cross, we should do likewise. Christ
didn't so much accomplish something on the cross (pay for our sins)
as He was setting a good example for us to follow. This alters the
meaning of the Gospel completely! This view of the atonement is
usually called the "Moral Influence" theory. Not only did Finney
believe that the "moral influence" theory of the atonement was the
chief way of understanding the cross; he explicitly denied the
substitutionary atonement, which he said:

"assumes that the atonement was a literal payment of a debt, which

we have seen does not consist with the nature of the atonement ...
It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation
of any one" -Charles G. Finney (Systematic Theology p.217).

The following articles and videos are from various writers,

theologians and pastors who all agree that Charles G. Finney had a
number of very questionable beliefs, and it would do the church
much good to carefully consider how Finney's ideas contrast with
Holy Scripture. (click on the titel on the webpage)

The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney by Michael Horton

Charles Finney’s Influence on American Evangelicalism-

Exposing Charles Finney's Heretical Teachings by Bob
DeWaay

Charles Finney's Influence on American Evangelicalism Radio

Broadcast with Bob DeWaay

The Pelagian Controversy by R. C. Sproul

Charles G. Finney: Heretic or Man of God (Part one) by

Richard Belcher

Charles G. Finney: Heretic or Man of God (Part two) by

Richard Belcher

Charles G. Finney: Heretic or Man of God (Part three) by

Richard Belcher

Finney: The Aftermath by Monte E. Wilson

A Wolf In Sheep's Clothing: How Charles Finney's Theology

Ravaged the Evangelical Movement by Phil Johnson
Charles Finney The Father of American Evangelicalism
lecture by Jeremy Rhode

Walther Versus Finney by Dr. Tom Baker

Charles G. Finney: How Theology Affects Understanding of

Revival by Iain H. Murray

The Heresies of Charles Finney (Part one) by John Cereghin

The False Teachers: Pelagius by Tim Challies

Charles G. Finney: How Theology Affects Understanding of

Revival

5. [Link]
finney-the-aftermath-by-monte-e-wilson/#google_vignette

Finney believed that proof of the truths he was preaching

concerning revival was in the great numbers of those being
converted. He never wearied of telling his fellow ministers that, if
they would just follow his techniques, revival would inevitably
follow. However, by Finney’s own admission, rather than a
continuous revival sweeping across the land ‘The glory has been
departing and revivals have been becoming less and less frequent—
less powerful'(Murray, p.285f). Worse, he admits that the great body
of those who were thought to have been converted were a ‘disgrace
to religion’ (Murray, p.289). By Finney’s own standard, his teachings
on how to produce converts and revival, as well as their underlying
assumptions, were proven wrong.

Finney’s theology betrayed him. Because he believed that everyone

had the ability to instantly receive Christ upon hearing the gospel,
many who were spiritually unprepared decided to accept Christ, but
in reality were still, at best, seekers. Finneyism, in seeking to close
the sale, actually served to close hearts and minds to the biblical
message of salvation, leaving people deceived as to their spiritual
state, wondering why the Christian life eluded them. Tragically,
Finneyan theology is still all the rage in much of Evangelicalism. One
can only hope that its defective fruit will plague, burden and shame
us to the point where our humiliation will turn to humility which will
lead to the pursuit of biblical truth and godly practices.
_____________________________________________________________________

6. [Link]

Finney vs. Justification by Faith

Specifically, what were Finney's most serious errors? At the top of

the list stands his rejection of the doctrine of justification by faith.
Finney denied that the righteousness of Christ is the sole ground of
our justification, teaching instead that sinners must reform their
own hearts in order to be acceptable to God. (His emphasis on self-
reformation apart from divine enablement is again a strong echo of
Pelagianism.)
Finney spends a considerable amount of time in several of his
works arguing against "that
theological fiction of imputation" [Memoirs, 58]. Those who have
any grasp of Protestant doctrine will see immediately that his attack
at this point is a blatant rejection of the doctrine of justification by
faith alone (sola fide). It places him outside the pale of true
evangelical Protestantism. The doctrine of imputed righteousness is
the very heart of the historic difference between Protestantism and
Roman Catholicism. The whole doctrine of justification by faith
hinges on this concept. But Finney flatly rejected it. He derided the
concept of imputation as unjust: "I could not but regard and treat
this whole question of imputation as a theological fiction, somewhat
related to our legal fiction of John Doe and Richard Roe"
[Memoirs, 60]. Dismissing the many biblical texts that expressly say
righteousness is imputed to believers for their justification, he
wrote,

These and similar passages are relied upon, as teaching

the doctrine of an imputed righteousness; and such as
these: "The Lord our righteousness" (Phil. 3:9). . . .
"Christ our righteousness" is Christ the author or
procurer of our justification. But this does not imply that
He procures our justification by imputing His obedience
to us. . . [Charles Finney, Systematic
Theology (Minneapolis: Bethany), 372-73].

Here Finney offers no cogent explanation of what he imagines

Scripture does mean when it speaks repeatedly of the imputation of
righteousness to believers (e.g., Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:4-6). But
throughout all his discussions of imputation Finney repeatedly
insists that neither merit nor guilt can righteously be imputed from
one person to another. Therefore, Finney argues, the righteousness
of Christ can provide no ground for the justification of sinners.
Furthermore, he continues:
[Subhead:] Foundation of the justification of penitent
believers in Christ. What is the ultimate ground or
reason of their justification?

It 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 [Systematic Theology, 373].

Obfuscating the issue further, Finney listed several "necessary

conditions" (insisting these are not, technically, grounds) of
justification. These "necessary conditions" included Christ's atoning
death, the Christian's own faith, repentance, sanctification, and—
most ominously—the believer's ongoing obedience to the law.
Finney wrote,
There can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense,
but upon the ground[2] of universal, perfect, and
uninterrupted obedience to law. This is of course denied
by those who hold that gospel justification, or the
justification of penitent sinners, is of the nature of a
forensic or judicial justification. They hold to the legal
maxim, that what a man does by another he does by
himself, and therefore the law regards Christ's
obedience as ours, on the ground that He obeyed for us
[Systematic Theology, 362].

Of course, Finney denied that Christ "obeyed for us," claiming that
since Christ was Himself obligated to render full obedience to the
law, His obedience could justify Himself alone. "It can never be
imputed to us," Finney intoned [Systematic Theology, 362].
The clear implication of Finney's view is that justification
ultimately hinges on the believer's own obedience, and God will not
truly and finally pardon the repentant sinner until after that penitent
one completes a lifetime of faithful obedience.

Thus Finney insisted that justification ultimately hinges on the

believer's own performance, not Christ's. Here Finney once more
turns his guns against the doctrine of imputation:
Those who hold that justification by imputed
righteousness is a forensic proceeding, take a view of
final or ultimate justification, according with their view
of the nature of the transaction. With them, faith
 receives an imputed righteousness, and a judicial
justification. The first act of faith, according to them,
introduces the sinner into this relation, and obtains for
him a perpetual justification. They maintain that after
this first act of faith it is impossible for the sinner to
come into condemnation; [Systematic Theology, 369].

But isn't that precisely what Scripture teaches? John [Link] "He that
believeth on him is not condemned." John [Link] "He that heareth my
word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and
shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto
life." Galatians [Link] "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the
law, being made a curse for us." It was immediately following his
great discourse on justification by faith that the apostle Paul wrote,
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in
Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1).

7. [Link]
legacy-of-charles-finney

Atonment according to Finney

The first thing we must note about the atonement, Finney says, is
that Christ could not have died for anyone else’s sins than his own.
His obedience to the law and his perfect righteousness were
sufficient to save him, but could not legally be accepted on behalf of
others. That Finney’s whole theology is driven by a passion for
moral improvement is seen on this very point: “If he [Christ] had
obeyed the Law as our substitute, then why should our own return
to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non of our
salvation?” (p. 206). In other words, why would God insist that we
save ourselves by our own obedience if Christ’s work was sufficient?
The reader should recall the words of St. Paul in this regard, “I do
not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the
law, then Christ died for nothing.” It would seem that Finney’s reply
is one of agreement. The difference is, he has no difficulty believing
both of those premises.

Finney’s New Measures

As the Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield pointed out so eloquently,

there are two religions throughout history: Heathenism–of which
Pelagianism is a religious expression–and supernatural redemption.
And with Warfield and those who so seriously warned their brothers
and sisters of these errors among Finney and his successors, we too
must come to terms with the wildly heterodox strain in American
Protestantism. With roots in Finney’s revivalism, perhaps
evangelical and liberal Protestantism are not that far apart after all.
His “New Measures,” like today’s church growth movement, made
human choices and emotions the center of the church’s ministry,
ridiculed theology, and replaced the preaching of Christ with the
preaching of conversion.

8. [Link]
the_influence_of_chrales_finney.php

We must understand that Finney’s evangelistic

methodologies were built upon false doctrine

He didn’t merely reject some form of Calvinism, he rejected the

Bible. He held some extremely serious heresies. He denied original
sin, Christ’s substitutionary atonement, imputed righteousness,
justification by God’s grace alone through faith alone without works,
the new birth as a supernatural miracle, and eternal security.

Finney preached a works gospel. He taught that man is not born

with a corrupt nature, but that he has the power to sin or not to sin
and that he is not under the judgment of God for Adam’s sin but is
judged only for his own sin. Finney taught that Christ died, not as a
substitutionary atonement for man’s sin, not in the sinner’s place,
but as an example of how that God loves sinners and hates sin. If
sinners understand this and turn from sin, they will be saved.
Regeneration is to change one’s actions, and one is kept saved by
walking in perfect holiness.

“According to Finneyism, the atonement saves us by example. In

the death of Christ, we see how much God loves us, we see how
much sin cost God, and we are humbled and moved to repent and
obey God’s moral law. Salvation in Finneyism is nothing more nor
less than obedience to the moral law of God, of which every man is
naturally capable because he is a completely free moral agent”
(Leon Stump, “Charles G. Finney Justification by Faith,” Life Lines,
Oct.-Dec. 1999).

Following are shocking quotes from Finney’s Lectures in Systematic

Theology. Finney was a philosopher, not a simple Bible teacher. He
depended upon his human reason rather than the clear statements
of God’s Word. He leaned to his own understanding.

"Original sin, physical regeneration, and all their kindred and

resulting dogmas, are alike subversive of the gospel, and repulsive
to the human intelligence; and should be laid aside as relics of a
most unreasonable and confused philosophy.” (Lecture 42)

“If the Psalmist [Ps. 51:5] really intended to affirm, that the
substance of his body was sinful from its conception, then he not
only arrays himself against God’s own definition of sin, but he also
affirms sheer nonsense. The substance of an unborn child sinful! It is
impossible!” (Lecture 23)

“[Psalm 58:3, ‘The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go
astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies’] must mean like the
text last examined, that the wicked are estranged and go astray
from the commencement of their moral agency. If it means more
than this, it is not and cannot be true.” (Lecture 36)