124 thoughts on “Historicity”

    1. … and headed for home… here comes the throw… It’s gonna be close… and heeeeeeeeeeeeeeee’sss ……outta there! Billy Sunday is thrown out at the plate. He hit a frozen rope into left field with his Temperance theology, but without a solid grasp of the Gospel his morality sermons came up short.

      1. But wait a minute fans. They are calling for instant replay. This replay is brought to you by Acme Vacuum Cleaners. Remember, Acme’s vacuums really suck. They are reviewing this upstairs. Today’s replay official is none other than Jack Hyles.

  1. I was really stumped on the correct answer for #7 – thank you Darrell

  2. What’s the question? I’m assuming it’s history, but if it’s reading comprehension than the answer could be #7 without it being as bad. If that’s what the writer said, that’s what you’d want to choose.

    Of course that means the writer is re-writing history, but I’m just curious if they’re teaching this directly or indirectly.

    1. Isn’t it bad pedagogy to have children uncritically read something patently false?

  3. Wow! Billy Sunday! Hadn’t thought of him since, about, oh…. 3rd grade or so, when I was in Christian school, studying from A Beka Books. Funny – he’s such a Major Historical Figure.

      1. Wodehouse is great! I’m reading his Golf Omnibus in the evenings I’m home. Even if you don’t like golf, the stories are very enjoyable.

        1. I’ve never read that, but now I want to. I can never get enough Wodehouse!

      2. I also love PG Wodehouse. (Funnily enough, I was introduced to him freshmen year at BJU, when my speech-major roommate considered doing her final performance on The Code of the Woosters.) In any case, my favourite is Something New (or Something Fresh, depending on which edition you get) – it never gets old.

        1. I love Something Fresh, too. But my all-time fave has to be Right Ho, Jeeves. The scene where Gussy Fink-Nottle gives out the prizes at Market Snodsbury Grammar School — oh. my. gosh. I laugh so hard I have tears running down my face.

        2. That was one of his best. stories. I believe it may be time to reread some Jeeves/Wooster stories. Anytime we are on a trip and see a used bookstore, I go in. Wodehouse books are on the list of books I’m perpetually on the lookout for.

          —– – have you ever read Patrick Mcmanus? He writes outdoor humor; camping, hunting, fishing, etc. stories. He is also an English professor, and I’m pretty sure Wodehouse was an influence of his. Two stories I recommend are “The Night The Bear Ate Goombaw”, from the book of the same name, and “Poof, No Eyebrows”, from the book, “Never Sniff A Gift Fish”.

          Nothing to do with Fundy history, but I digress easily.

        3. I have a lot of Pat McManus’s books – and I’m not a guy or a hunter! He’s had me in stitches reading them before.

  4. If Question 7 is meant to be true, it’s probably on a very local level. Also, nowhere does it say that other saloons didn’t open at a later time.

    1. It’s true that saloons went out of business, but not because “many people got saved” by Sunday’s stance against alcohol. They were put out of business when the national Prohibition Amendment went into effect.
      At the time, Billy Sunday famously predicted that all the prisons, poorhouses, and insane asylums would close for lack of inmates.
      They didn’t.

      1. Many saloons went out of business…many speakeasies opened soon after. And stills turned quite a profit too.

        If Sunday thought prohibition would close the prisons, poorhouses, and asylums, he probably thought it would come about because people would stop drinking. Bad assumption.

        1. …not to say that I buy into the no liquor = social utopia argument, either.

        2. There are two faulty assumptions involved: People will not drink alcohol if it’s illegal; and alcohol is the direct cause of most of the human misery in our society.

          I don’t want to be too mocking of the Temperance movement. Alcohol did (and does) do a lot of damage to individuals, families, and communities. That was even more true of the nasty rotgut liquor that was so common in America before (and during) Prohibition. Nowadays, there are ways to get the most toxic stuff off the market. Not then.
          If you have a strong stomach, read Jacob Riis’ descriptions (and see his photos) of the “stale beer dives” of the 1880s and 90s. They featured the remnants left in the glasses by patrons of slightly more expensive saloons. All that bilge would be poured into a barrel and resold to the skid-row joints. For two cents, a patron could drink as much as he or she could suck through a rubber hose without taking a breath.
          (Another interesting account of this period is “Low Life,” by Luc Sante.)

          It turned out that banning drinking alcohol (with certain exceptions) didn’t solve the problem, though. It only made criminal gangs rich and powerful.
          The current “War on Drugs” pretty much proves that Americans learn nothing from history.

        3. When I was a street cop (before the administrative lobotomy) I met folks who, when they couldn’t afford or find alcohol would resort to drinking Listerine; Nyquil; or Prestone.

        4. My grandfather was a pharmacist starting in the late 1920s. During Prohibition, “winos,” as he called them, would come into the drugstore where Grandpa worked and buy rubbing alcohol, which in those days was usually methanol (methyl alcohol). A few minutes later, someone would find the customers comatose on the sidewalk in front of the store. Some of them didn’t even get outside the store before they cracked open the bottle, took a swig, and collapsed. Methanol causes permanent blindness in people who imbibe a sufficient dose of it.

          Others who couldn’t get drinking alcohol (ethanol) used to drink Sterno, kerosine, brake fluid, turpentine, and all sorts of other solvents.

      2. OK, just read the Wikipedia article. He actually comes across as a very sympathetic figure…basically a good guy. Despite his failed predictions. ๐Ÿ˜‰

        1. I read the Wikipedia and wondered whether it was written by a fundy. I don’t think it was written in an unbiased manner, there seems to be loaded language used.

      3. “It turned out that banning drinking alcohol (with certain exceptions) didnโ€™t solve the problem, though. It only made criminal gangs rich and powerful.
        The current โ€œWar on Drugsโ€ pretty much proves that Americans learn nothing from history.”

        Wow, that’s probably the first time ever that I actually agreed with anything Big Gary said.

        1. Stacy, your agreement with Big Gary is the first time I’ve ever agreed with you. (Scorp, don’t get jealous.)

        2. Stacy, I’m pretty busy today, so if you could just go ahead and offend yourself for me, that would be great. Thanks.

        3. Since leaving the fundies my view on the “war on drugs” has changed realizing the the “war” is doing absolutely nothing but increasing violent crimes, gang activity, and increasing our prison population.

          I also changed my political party from Republican to Libertarian.

          My family members who are still fundie can’t stand that I’ve changed to a “stay out of other people’s business” stance. After all I’m pretty sure the Church Lady on SNL was probably modeled after a fundie.

    2. And of course notice the man-centrism: because a man did something, people got saved. Where is the drawing of the Holy Spirit? Where is mention of the fact that some plant, some water, but GOD gives the increase?

      1. That, to me, is the subtext of much Fundamentalist and some Evangelical soteriology: It’s up to humans, not God, to save themselves and others.
        Praise the Preacher for his saving works!

        1. Ironically, no fundy will every admit this. They say, “It’s all about Jesus,” and in the same breath berate “his” sheeple for not doing more, gving more, obeying the leadership more…and did I mention tithing? (oh, that’s part of giving).

          Kind of like, “Exegete!” all the while reading into the text their precious traditions.

          BJg mentioned his Administrative lobotomy (I’m assuming he obtained this during the course of his promotions in LE. This is usually obtained while a line-level supervisor [sergeant] with the effects dramatically noted in the ivory tower ranks of lieutenant to Chief). In Fundystan, the lobotomy is obtained when one is selected by the Mog to join the hierarchical ranks in churchianity like, Deacon, Trustee, and in some more fundylite circles, Elder. The lobotomy is a metaphor for “KoolAid.”

          Stay thirsty, my friends!


        2. B.R.O., you’re right about how one obtains the administrative lobotomy in L.E. I’m hopeful that the procedure can be reversed subsequent to my retirement in about a year:)

      1. My ‘non-fundy’ Seminary had a magnificent oil painting on Spurgeon that had lovingly been altered/ruined by painting over the pipe in his hand and replacing it with a sheet of white paper – Spurgeon with a parking ticket!

  5. I love the use of the word ‘saloon’. Is that still generally used in America? Here it’d be ‘pub’.

    1. We mostly say “Bar.” Saloons are reserved for western tourist traps and redneck wannabe western bars.

      1. Saloon is probably used here either because it sounds appropriate to the time period (it’s antiquated), or because it just sounds more menacing than bar – it has that ring of hellfire about it, from all those old stories of crusading prohibitionists.

        1. Fair enough. Here, the word ‘saloon’ merely conjures for me an image of the Wile West, possibly with Marty McFly ๐Ÿ˜‰

        2. Before the prohibitionists got hold of it, “saloon” was an advertisement that a place was a classy joint where people could socialize, not some dive where all you did was drink.

        3. This is most certainly true–rather like Harold Hill is sure to distinguish “pool” and “billiards” because Trouble and Menace.

        4. I think you’re right for both reasons. Sunday’s famous line was, “I’ll fight the saloon from Hawaii [pronounced Ha-why-ya] to Hoboken.” An almost melodic line that would have been ruined had ‘bar’ replaced ‘saloon.’

          No mention of Billy Sunday can be complete without noting the devastating effects his ministry had on his children and grandchildren. The info is available online, but it’s safe to say that none rose up to call him blessed.

        5. Hmmm. He could have said, “I’ll fight bars from Boston to Berkeley.”
          Or, “I’ll fight taverns from Tacoma to Tampa.”
          Or, “I’ll fight the lounge from Louisville to Louisiana.”
          Or, “I’ll fight the pub from Portland to Poughkeepsie.”
          Or, “I’ll fight cocktails from Bangkok to Cockroach Bay.”
          Or, “I’ll fight whiskey from Walla Walla to Waterloo.”

          … But “saloon” does have a certain panache.

        6. That depends on which Portland you mean.
          Portland, Texas to Poughkeepsie, N.Y. is 1898 miles.
          Portland, Oregon to Poughkeepsie, N.Y. is 2919 miles.

          Portland, Maine to Poughkeepsie, Arkansas is 1485 miles.

      2. Local bar here is called the Circle S saloon. The sign outside even says saloon. Of course, we are in a rural area outside of Tucson, and it is a cowboy bar.
        Oh, and some local Fundies, and some not so Fundies call it the Circle Satan.

        1. Anybody else getting an image of the Devil twirling a lasso? ๐Ÿ˜ˆ ๐Ÿ˜€

    2. I think, even in Mr. Sunday’s day, the word “saloon” was used to invoke the galloping insanity of romanticized “wild west” watering holes. Preachers liked it because it made drinking liquor sound particularly tawdry, dirty, and low class. Perhaps bar owners liked it for a similar reason – to make their product seem more edgy.

      1. But any saloon would be livened up by the presence of Miss Kitty. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    3. “Saloon” was a common term in the early 1900s, when the debate over Prohibition was going on most hotly.

      As Arch Radish says, most places called “saloons” now are tourist traps or theme restaurants.

      Bar, pub, tavern, lounge, and club are all names used by alcohol dispensaries in the U.S. these days.

      1. We have a ‘real’ pub here owned by British expats. Called The Union Jack and its one of our favorite places. ๐Ÿ™‚

        That has nothing to do with anything. Carry on…

        1. In a British pub the name “saloon” was often applied to a slightly smarter bar where women were allowed (under escort) and could drink a half-pint (but never a pint) out of schooner glasses. The room next door was, of course, for the men only.

        2. Now in Britain, the term “saloon” is what we call a “sedan”… a car ๐Ÿ™‚

    4. “Saloon” had a particular meaning at the time: a place where alcohol was sold, usually along with food, and there were plenty of places to sit or lean and talk with people. They were social hubs for urban immigrant men. Anything from a job interview to a business meeting to a voting rally might take place at a saloon.

      Naturally such dens of vice had to go, said the descendants of old American families who lived outside the major cities or at least go away regularly.

      1. It’s true that there was a good measure of ant-immigrant and anti-Catholic prejudice being played to by the old Temperance movement.
        But it’s complicated. The Temperance activists wanted to ban all alcoholic beverages and all drinking hangouts, not just the ones favored by immigrants and other “outside” groups.

  6. _____ 8. Billy was a highly-accomplished actor, who received large amounts of money to perform his “sermons.”

    _____ 9. From 1908-1920, Billy took in over $1,000,000 in personal income from his performances.

    _____ 10. Billy let people who got “saved” at his rallies to pick which church they wanted to attend and then sent their decision card to that church even if it was Catholic or Unitarian.

    _____ 11. Billy said that if his wife had been a Catholic, he would have been a Catholic.

    _____ 12. Billy’s children did not follow his teachings and a great deal of his fortune was spent paying people off to not speak of their misadventures. Much of the remainder of Billy’s fortune was left in trust funds for his children.

    1. Read that they had three of their kids raised by a nanny and then wondered why they didn’t accept their largely absent father’s beliefs. Sad that he focused on theatrics for personal wealth and glory rather than family. He missed out.

    2. How could #10 be true? Doesn’t he want them to become Real True Christians?

  7. My first comment above was super sarcastic, but this is a sort of honest question – how big of a figure was Billy Sunday? I remember hearing about him as some towering giant of the faith in his time, when I learned about him as a kid in Christian school. Since then – nothing. I barely remembered him until I saw this post, honestly. Was he a big deal culturally, for a little while, or is he just a small local fundy hero?

    1. Just read about him on Wikipedia. It looks like he was a big deal at the time, but people lost interest after WWI when they had access to the theatre and other forms of entertainment. IOW, he was enjoyed for the cheap entertainment value, not because people were genuinely inspired by him.

    2. He was sort of the celebrity preacher of his day, kind of like BiIly Graham. He hung out with presidents and celebrities and preached a fairly bland amalgam of popular-at-the-time Protestant doctrines.

      1. OK, he’s immortal then.

        And I’m sure I’ve heard Chicago, years ago, but never spotted the BSunday reference I guess.

    3. He was an entertainment celebrity, sort of like Miley Cyrus or Paris Hilton.
      He was frequently featured in newsreels and radio broadcasts.

      So Billy Sunday was more of a pop-culture figure than a serious influence on theology, or, for that matter, politics.

        1. No, and he didn’t do unusual theatrics with his mic either. Billy wore suits, Miley her birthday suit.

      1. Except he is a serious influence on the theology of certain IFB camps. My old pastor always brung him up in conversations and sermons. He always included Sunday’s first 2 names……The Great.

  8. In the spirit of “Tis So Sweet to Wear Long Dresses” from last week, I found myself wondering if there were anti-alcohol hymns from times gone by. The internet did not disappoint:


    Some of these songs are quite intriguing. Indeed, it seems that one may have had to be somewhat intoxicated to come up with some of this stuff.

    1. Wow……. My favorite:
      Stand up, stand up for temp’rance
      Ye soldiers of the cross;
      Be working! save the fallen
      By pointing to the cross;
      The sons of earth are sinking
      Beneath rum’s fearful sway;
      Go, thou and be a doing
      Ere fades away the day.


    2. My grandmother used to sing this one:

      Away With Rum (5)(Song of the Temperance Union)

      We’re coming, we’re coming, our brave little band,
      On the right side of temperance we do take our stand.
      We don’t use tobacco because we do think
      That the people who use it are likely to drink.

      cho: Away, away with rum by gum,
      With rum by gum, with rum by gum!
      Away, away with rum by gum!
      The song of the Temperance Union!
      (Salvation Army)Away With Rum (5)(Song of the Temperance Union)

      The rest of the many, many verses are here:


  9. Okay, so I admit that I use A Beka curriculum, and I admit that I just finished teaching my 3rd grader using the History curriculum. I did not have my 3rd grader read the book though, but I taught her about the people using the book as well as other sources. When we got to Billy Sunday I skipped over a lot of what the book had to say (and pointed out the parts that where not true), and when we got to the quizzes there were times that I would tell her that what the answer they wanted was, but that it wasn’t really true. There were several times I would roll my eyes, and tell her to just put down the answer they wanted. I think we even had a discussion about this particular question. We have been trying to teach our kids to think critically about the stories people write about history and not to just take one historians perspective as true, but to find multiple sources for information.

    1. I strongly recommend “Story of the World” for history in the early grades. We LOVE it here. It presents history in a way that I’ve never experienced before, and it opens up so many fun conversations. We supplement it with documentaries and activities.

      1. I enthusiastically second the recommendation for The Story of the World series for elementary level History.

    2. You should check out Sonlight Curriculum. We have used it with great results. Although I would suggest ditching their recommended math (Horizons, I think) for RightStart Math.

    3. I strongly recommend Horrible Histories – British Humour at its finest. ๐Ÿ™‚

  10. Sunday’s sermons correlated to bars being closed.

    Internet Explorer use correlates to high murder rates.

    Autism is correlated to organic food consumption.

    So now you know. *cue rainbow*

  11. Here is a question I would like to pose. This is truly a question, so please don’t anyone beat me up or think it’s a rhetorical question that I’ve already posed an answer to and just want everyone to answer a certain way and that if I don’t get that answer I’m going to rant about how wrong they are. Here’s the question. I will say this question assumes that our lives on this earth are for growing closer to God and knowing Him better.

    When we hear preaching and/or teaching on ANY subject, how do we determine if what is being taught is truth and beneficial for growing closer to God or is one man’s opinion and to be disregarded?

    1. And I’m aware this only vaguely ties to this post. Although the use of alcohol is a widely debated topic in Christian circles with many viewpoints, so I guess that’s how I tie the two together.

    2. And if wants to know what my opinion of alcohol use is, I will give it. But based on how I was received a few days ago, please let me say my opinion is exactly that, MY opinion of how I believe I personally should treat alcohol use and is in no way to be interpreted as what I think anyone else’s “stand” or “viewpoint” should be.

    3. 1. Is it Biblical?

      I think it all goes back to Scripture. The Bereans searched the Scripture to see if what was being taught to them was true. After His resurrection, Jesus took the two disciples on the road to Emmaus back through the Old Testament to all the prophecies written about Himself. So often preachers add to the Word of God and fall into error.

      2. Is it balanced?

      If it is not in Scripture, it probably falls under the area of Christian liberty and the person preaching it should present it that way. Saying for example, “I’ve found that getting up an hour early to have quiet time alone with God has been beneficial to my spiritual life” is good. Saying “Any so-called Christian who doesn’t have the self-discipline to get up an hour early and read the Bible and pray, doesn’t really care about God and ought to question whether he or she is even saved!” is flat-out wrong, yet that is the kind of preaching that I’ve heard in many churches. Sometimes people like this kind of preaching because they are uncomfortable with gray areas and like black and white or they like someone telling them what to do, absolving them of personal responsibility. Others agree with the preacher and enjoy that kind of preaching because it verifies in their mind that they are right.

      3. Is it Backed by a Spirit-filled life?

      One thing I observe is the character of the speaker. If he is not exhibiting grace, gentleness, kindness, patience, and humility, if he is easily irritable or seems to enjoy fighting and arguing, he is NOT demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit. If he isn’t showing evidence of the Spirit in his life, why would I give credence to what he is saying?

      (P.S. I couldn’t help myself — I went back and added alliteration to my points. lol)

      1. Is it Biblical? Well you can find a proof text for just about anything. So the test here has to be how it relates not just to a carefully selected passage but to the God of the Bible you have already come to know. And the “you” there is plural. Those Bereans and other early Christians had quite a job to do in order to sort truth from wrong. Over the first century or so they received all sorts of documents, many good and godly. Not all became scripture, even the good stuff, but only those whose teachings persisted in their usefulness and that continually drew the comunity closer to God. Of course, many individuals and communities got sidetracked or sent up blind alleys, but I guess that’s not too big a problem for God who sees all and knows all, and looks first at the heart. As my very learned and wise College Principal said, ” Twenty-five percent of what I say is wrong. The only problem is, I don’t know which twenty-five percent.” I think God can handle that.

        1. Definitely. “Biblical” can’t mean “can I find one verse in Scripture that sounds, especially in 1611 English, that it supports my opinion?” but “What does all of Scripture say and what does the context say?” and “How have other people interpreted this to mean?”

        2. But even these supposed “proof texts” don’t usually mean what the preachers say they mean. An excellent example of this is Bill Gothard’s material. He constantly would make a statement and put a Bible verse next to it, and I’d read it and think, “WHAT in the WORLD is the reason why he put this verse here?” because I couldn’t see a connection.

          Another example is “old paths”. Of course, you can find the words “old paths” in Scripture, but it’s what the pastor adds to that to define old paths that must ALSO be checked with Scripture, not just a phrase or an expression.

      2. Wow – PW. You are right on all points. On #2, I could’t count the times I’ve heard fundy preachers/evangelists go on an on about early morning devotions and how it’s God’s desire we do so, just because this may be their practice. I’ve always felt that they were strictly preaching their opinions and not Biblical principle. One fundy preacher I know always boasts on how he gets up at 5:00 every morning and goes straight to his “prayer closet.” I say – well good for you!!! I’m not a morning person at all, so late night Bible study is best suited for me – and does God really care anyway??? It drives me crazy when they preach opinion – and believe me most Fundy preachers do this 90% of the time.

        1. Back some 25ish years ago, Larry Lea came out with his ‘Will You Not Tarry With Me One Hour?’ formula for prayer. Loosely based on the Lord’s Prayer, if you followed all of his little permutations, it took about an hour.

          Everyone I knew was doing this (at least until the bloom wore off) and everyone said you had to do it first thing in the morning- a time of day that I am not amongst the living. (James says I’m part vampire, and I’m not going to disagree with him.) I struggle through for a couple of months, fell asleep with my face down in my Bible several times, and finally petered off. I had three small children then, and the household to take care of, and being up an hour early was sooo not doing it for me.

          Anything that is that difficult or burdensome is not going to last. I find that my reading and meditation happens in teh middle of the night, when the house is quiet and my brain is awake. I don’t think that God speaks any clearer at 6am than at 2, so I don’t see a problem with it. If I’m mindful, who cares what the clock says?

          BTW, about Lea’s thing- I remember being really uncomfortable with parts of it- it felt wrong. Heavily ritualized, even forced. And parts of it are ‘extra-Biblical’ at best, and un-Biblical at worst. There’s even parts that are *pagan* practice. (There’s a section where you’re supposed to turn to the north/south/east/west and make claims and declarations- this is a practice called ‘warding’, and is pagan/Wiccan in origin. Yikes!) I really have to wonder where and from whom he was getting his ideas…

    4. I like the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” (promoted, though not invented, by John Wesley).
      Wesley said that any claims of spiritual or moral truth should be tested against Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. Omitting any of these four criteria can lead to errors.

      1. The quadrilateral is very important.

        I believe the main “test” has to do with telos. That is to say, the apostles didn’t just have teaching, they had a purpose (so did Jesus). Remember the Pharisees? They had all their theological ducks in a row, but obviously got it all wrong. They didn’t have the values and purpose right. The quadrilateral can help with this, but if you don’t have the right spirit, any kind of metric will fail.

  12. Beka is what supports PCC.

    I heard that years ago HAC used Beka materials. I didn’t take any history or “science” courses there so I can’t speak to that.

    Honestly though, I can’t remember what courses I took there besides a course with Grady, a course with Jeffries, and a “Bible” course taught by someone with a juvenile sense of humor.

  13. Thank you for reason #4,367 why I don’t send my kids to a school with A Beka or BJU Press as their curriculum.

    Also, why we will never use it in our homeschool. (And no, I’m not one of THOSE Homeschoolers… we’re normal and not even close to fundy… No jean jumpers here).

    1. Jean Jumper, for a minute I had an image of someone leaping over a pair of pants, before I got it straight. ๐Ÿ˜€

    2. I really liked A Beka grammar books, but we never used anything else. I don’t think I want to know what their history is like!

  14. ___17. Billy’s wife, Nell, is revered on the campus of Bob Jones University.

    ___18. Billy Sunday was close friends with Bob Jones Sr., internationally known evangelist and founder of Bob Jones University; Who, during his earthly ministry, was one of God’s great warriors for the faith.

  15. I suppose making disciples doesn’t WOW the junior fundies like busting people’s chops from the soap box, uh, pulpit.

  16. BTW, is this a course on actual history? Even if it’s a religious class on ecclesiastical history, it’s absurdly weighted, if it’s on actual history, this should be criminal.

    1. Yes – this is an actual american history course for 3rd grade for most IFB supported Christian school programs. A Beka is notorious for throwing in facts about #OldPaths, preachers, evangelists, and missionaries into their “History” lessons. You would think this would be incorporated into the Bible lessons. They start early indoctrinating the ‘young ens’ on the “Men of God” and early IFBism.

  17. I am currently “researching” Charles Finney. My grandpa (who died before I was born, but was from what I understand a good man, liked by many, hated by some, but kind to all) had his (Finney’s) book Systematic Theology which my mom just gave to me a few days ago. I have found quotes from this book on the internet with page numbers, but I can’t locate the quotes in the book because the quotes on the internet are from the 1976 printing and the book I have was printed in 1878. I am assuming the quotes I find ARE in the book since they are listed with page numbers and I will eventually find them in the book that I have to make certain they are there. But nonetheless, I have been talking with my mom about Finney’s teachings and how ingrained I believe they are in the “conservative holiness” church. I was always taught (or not so much taught, but just “assumed”) Finney was a great man of God. Here is one quote from his book Systematic Theology. “โ€œThe doctrine of imputed righteousness, or that Christโ€™s obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption.โ€ How could ANY preacher, pastor, missionary, evangelist, or any Christian for that matter listen to ANYTHING else Finney had to say? Unless I am completely off my rocker, the doctrine of imputed righteousness isn’t a “doctrine”, it is the foundation of salvation. Without the “doctrine” of imputed righteousness, “Christians” don’t exist!!!! Am I wrong here?

    1. I can’t get into the forum section some reason, so I have to “discuss” on here. I take Paul Washer as an example. I don’t know how y’all feel about him. I believe he preaches the truth. There is just something about his delivery (which may seem petty) that rubs me the wrong way. It’s almost as if he says, “Oh, you think you’re saved!? What makes you think you’re saved? You pitiful little human being!!! Prove it to me that you’re saved by showing me how MUCH you are saved!!

      I don’t think he means to come across this way, but it’s almost as if he preaches that the proof and assurance of your salvation is how much you work afterwards. I don’t know, any thoughts on Paul Washer and this “type” of preaching? I’m not looking to just bash him or anyone else. I’m really looking for some true insight into what is behind this type of preaching. Perhaps he is influenced more by the ‘Charles Finney camp’ than he might be aware of?

  18. And this is why, since I’m stuck using ABeka Language in my 5th grade class and use some stories in the readers for independent reading time, that I write my own quizzes and have been known to make sarcastic comments about the more ridiculously sanctimonious and Jesus juke sentences in the text. I also skip all the “Look how these brown people just didn’t understand how to tithe and wear proper clothing and live like Western white people, but then–Huzzah!–these white missionaries came with the truth and they were saved and thenceforth lived like Christians! (AKA Western white folks) stories. Because they are awful.

    You should hear my co-teacher’s deconstruction of the science and social studies texts. We would both love to go strictly secular with all the curriculum, but that would never fly with the parents at the school. A number routinely question why we don’t use the ABeka math text in our 5th grade, and she just responds with a more tactful version of “because it’s worthless tripe.” haha. I’m so glad to have a fellow underminer to work with now.

    1. I cannot disagree with your statement more vehemently and I’m because of it I am not sure we can be friends in this life or the next. Tripe is amazing stuff in a taco. I’m not sure I can handle it in preparations like menudo where it is more forward, but tripe certainly is not “worthless”.

      1. Joshua, I wonder if you are confusing tripe (cow rumen) with “tripas” (intestines). “Tripas” is a common taco ingredient, while tripe is the raw material for menudo (tripe stew). They taste and smell different.

Comments are closed.