Finney Criticism

I was in wikipedia doing some research on Finney,when I saw that there was a debate on another page. I went to it and was shocked at what I read, I know many people dont agree with much of Finneys theology, but to go this far? To question his salvation and say he did not preach or beleive the gospel... Is this a commonly held beleif? I was wondering what the opinions are here on SI.

[b]Quote[/b]"Moreover, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, rather than a place to air particular points of view. Like you, I am not a fan of Finney's theology. He did not preach the gospel and did not believe the gospel. I honestly think he aint in heaven. But even though this is my own personal belief (and probably yours)."

I love Finney, he is one of the greatest preachers of all time!

I had a similar reaction as yours James when I read what was reported about him on this webpage:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm

I was just shocked. First time I had ever heard criticism of Finney. If these things said about him are true, did he not touch on these subjects in his preaching?

finney was definitely a prophet preacher. he was very gifted in helping many see their evil motives, the true intent of the heart. we need more men like finney who knows how to use the sword of the Word with the power of His Spirit to cut men's heart and expose their wickedness.

Hi James,

Just a point of clarification, this was posted under the A.W. Tozer section, I am assuming this was accidental?

It's a fearful thing to dishonor the name of God's anointed. Though Finney sleeps in Christ, there will be a day of reckoning where every disparaging remark will march against the tongues that hurled them, and God will Himself avenge.

James, I wouldn't waste any time with these discernment watchdogs and/or armchair theologians whose public railments condemn them. They not only curse Charles Finney (who lead thousands upon thousands to Jesus Christ with genuine salvation) but they'll come against [i]anyone[/i] usually who is not of their own rotten brand of Calvinism (or whatever elite theology they subscribe to).

Wow, I hope this hasn't opened a can of worms! I'm not looking for a fight; I'm just warning a brother to steer clear of the plethora of cheap junk out there on the internet.

Brother Paul

Its funny to me how many people criticize him and haven't actually ever read anything by Finney. If they read any of his sermons or books they would obviously soon realize that he was an amazing communicator of the Gospel of Christ and was definately not a false prophet.

I ran into alot of this criticism of Finney about a year ago. I've found that it's the same people who criticized him in his day. The Reformed branch of theology dislikes Finney. R.C. Sproul has concluded that Finney was not a Christian. He wrote,

"In the nineteenth century, there was a preacher who became very popular in America, who wrote a book on theology, coming out of his own training in law, in which he made no bones about his Pelagianism. He rejected not only Augustinianism, but he also rejected semi-Pelagianism and stood clearly on the subject of unvarnished Pelagianism, saying in no uncertain terms, without any ambiguity, that there was no Fall and that there is no such thing as original sin. This man went on to attack viciously the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and in addition to that, to repudiate as clearly and as loudly as he could the doctrine of justification by faith alone by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This man’s basic thesis was, we don’t need the imputation of the righteousness of Christ because we have the capacity in and of ourselves to become righteous. His name: Charles Finney, one of America’s most revered evangelists. Now, if Luther was correct in saying that sola fide is the article upon which the Church stands or falls, if what the reformers were saying is that justification by faith alone is an essential truth of Christianity, who also argued that the substitutionary atonement is an essential truth of Christianity; if they’re correct in their assessment that those doctrines are essential truths of Christianity, the only conclusion we can come to is that Charles Finney was not a Christian. I read his writings and I say, “I don’t see how any Christian person could write this.” And yet, he is in the Hall of Fame of Evangelical Christianity in America. He is the patron saint of twentieth-century Evangelicalism. And he is not semi-Pelagian; he is unvarnished in his Pelagianism."

Well Its nice to know Im not alone! I personally like alot of what Finney has said, and to say these things about a man that was so powerfully used...(regardless of denomination) just seems so wrong.

yes it was accidental, sorry about that, I was reading an article in A.W. Tozers forum when I decided to post this thread, not thinking about it until it had been posted, sorry!

This man went on to attack viciously the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and in addition to that, to repudiate as clearly and as loudly as he could the doctrine of justification by faith alone by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This man’s basic thesis was, we don’t need the imputation of the righteousness of Christ because we have the capacity in and of ourselves to become righteous.

Charles Finney didn't really believe in such trash did he?

One of the man used in my walk with God and who by the Spirit led me to know the true and the living God in my life is Charles Finney eventhough he is centuries away from me! I personally am revived because I found about this man’s articles in SI! Let the criticizers do what he did to America actually to the world with his prayer partner Daniel Nash and then I will give them ear for the kingdom of God is not a matter of words but of power! Let’s not waste our time on this kind of people that we may not be taken with their foully! Lets move on with what is good and honest for the judge of this world will not slumber or sleep and will show Himself strong on behalf of His saints!!!

Your sis. Mek.

God no doubt used Mr. Finney to give me knowledge of the truth. With Finney I began to understand the scriptures for the first time and was amazed as the Bible came to life and had new meaning. I wasn't reading his book (Revival Lectures) to "look" for the truth. I read it because I had a passion for revival. I had quoted him some during a (uneducated - zeal without knowledge) revival and I didn't really know much about him. My life has been changed upside down?

So he is a pretty good guy I'd say.

This man went on to attack viciously the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and in addition to that, to repudiate as clearly and as loudly as he could the doctrine of justification by faith alone by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This man’s basic thesis was, we don’t need the imputation of the righteousness of Christ because we have the capacity in and of ourselves to become righteous.

Charles Finney didn't really believe in such trash did he?

7. He can not plead as our Advocate that He has paid our debt, in such a sense that He can demand our discharge on the ground of justice. He has not paid our debt in such a sense that we do not still owe it. He has not atoned for our sins in such a sense that we might not still be justly punished for them. Indeed, such a thing is impossible and absurd. One being can not suffer for another in such a sense as to remove the guilt of that other. He may suffer for another's guilt in such a sense that it will be safe to forgive the sinner, for whom the suffering has been endured; but the suffering of the substitute can never, in the least degree, diminish the intrinsic guilt of the criminal. Our Advocate may urge that He has borne such suffering for us to honor the law that we had dishonored, that now it is safe to extend mercy to us; but He never can demand our discharge on the ground that we do not deserve to be punished. The fact of our intrinsic guilt remains, and must forever remain; and our forgiveness is just as much an act of sovereign mercy, as if Christ had never died for us.

Finney's theology had no room for God to be both just and the justifier through substitutionary atonement. His doctrine in this regard was identical to that of Pelagius. According to Finney's own words quoted above one cannot be discharged from sin debt on the ground of justice which means that God cannot "justify" a sinner and still remain "just." What about Romans 3:21-26?

Grace and peace
Olan

As pertains to Original Sin I think Finney made the mistake of trying to understand the place that a unregenerate person is in through the eyes of being regenerate. This is a serious problem as it totally misunderstands the place a sinner is actually in while alienated from the life of God. It has serious implications and effects on ones theology also. Sure, I can tell a sinner to 'obey God' and live a righteous life because it is my experience that [u]I can[/u]. But the reason why I can is that God is working in me both to will and to do His great pleasure by the Holy Spirit. In other words, unlike the unregenerate, I have the Paraclete walking alongside helping me bear the fruit of the Spirit unto obedience.

This is where we get into a pickle. We are culpable for our crimes against God because at any given time we could have chosen to obey Him and we have resisted the Holy Spirit as He has pressed us to walk in the light that we have. However, 'obedience' is not the only issue by any means. Christ did not come to make bad men good He came to make dead men live (Ravenhill). Man lived alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that was in them through the blindness of their hearts. They needed to be 'regenerated'. This is more than simply changing ones mind. This is God coming in and making a new creature. This [u]is[/u] a Divine miracle. If any man be in Christ he/she is a [i]new creature[/i]. Finney was wrong to assert that regeneration is not a miracle. It is more than me making myself a new heart. What the Hyper Calvinists of Finney's day had done- Finney, unfortunately, took the opposite position and as a result was never really in balance (in my opinion). He placed man's salvation very much in man's hands and that is a serious problem if it is over stepped. Salvation soon becomes in practice the work of man 'working out' his/her own salvation in continual fear and trembling. Sounds biblical? What is the 'work'?

Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent." (John 6)

This is why, to me it is important to understand the nature of 'working out' our salvation. Faith has been called "right response to revelation". God reveals and we respond. If I do not respond rightly- it is [u]not[/u] faith. This is why 'self-examination' can be dangerous if it is not in the hands of the Holy Spirit. This is why examination in the hands of a well meaning preacher is also dangerous. God is working in us to will and do His good pleasure; our 'work' is to respond rightly to Him as He [i]reveals[/i]. We respond as He reveals. This is akin to the light that we are to walk in.

Either way we look at it, we have to be careful not to base our theology on our own present experience. I am utterly dependent to see the condition of sinners through the eyes of scripture. Error begets error. I like Finney on many things, but I also think that he was wrong in some areas. We have to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.

Question to robertw and to oversear; Have you read Systematic Theology by Finney?

Hi John,

Finney's works are quite extensive and involved. Following them is a very mind consuming task. I am mostly familiar with His Revival's of Religion and Memoirs, but I have read much of his systematic theology as well as related sermons and lectures. I don't count myself an expert on Finney by any stretch. For those who may not know, Finney studied to be a lawyer, so he is heavily influenced by that. It is quite circular also because he was once told that the laws that govern our land were based upon the scriptures. This sparked his interest in the bible and eventually he was converted.

He lived in a time when folk were basically told "You shall- you shant, you can- you can't. you will- you won't, and you'll be damned if you don't" (something like that). He arrived at a time that when someone needed to break this gridlock between the sinner and God. As Tozer once said to the effect, I do not agree with many of his conclusions, but he certainly got things moving again.

God Bless,

Robert

Overseer wrote:

Charles Finney wrote: Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. He can not plead as our Advocate that He has paid our debt, in such a sense that He can demand our discharge on the ground of justice. He has not paid our debt in such a sense that we do not still owe it. He has not atoned for our sins in such a sense that we might not still be justly punished for them. Indeed, such a thing is impossible and absurd. One being can not suffer for another in such a sense as to remove the guilt of that other. He may suffer for another's guilt in such a sense that it will be safe to forgive the sinner, for whom the suffering has been endured; but the suffering of the substitute can never, in the least degree, diminish the intrinsic guilt of the criminal. Our Advocate may urge that He has borne such suffering for us to honor the law that we had dishonored, that now it is safe to extend mercy to us; but He never can demand our discharge on the ground that we do not deserve to be punished. The fact of our intrinsic guilt remains, and must forever remain; and our forgiveness is just as much an act of sovereign mercy, as if Christ had never died for us.

If he denied that Christ fully paid the debt for our sins, how then could he have been saved? I don't care what any man has done, if you deny Christ the glory for your salvation, if you give up the blood, you are lost.

I thought I'd take another part of Finney's message "Christ, our Advocate" and let him explain his substitutionary view a bit more. Overseer provided #7; this is an excerpt from #8 of the same sermon. Hope this helps elucidate the issue at hand.

"They (theologians) insist upon it that the atonement of Christ is the ground of our forgiveness. They seem to assume that He literally bore the penalty for us in such a sense that Christ now no longer appeals to mercy, but demands justice for us. To be consistent they must maintain that Christ does not plead at a mercy-seat for us, but having paid our debt, appears before a throne of justice, and demands our discharge.

I cannot accept this view. I insist that His offering could not touch the question of our intrinsic desert of damnation. His appeal is to the infinite mercy of God, to His loving disposition to pardon; and He points to His atonement, not as demanding our release, but as fulfilling a condition upon which our release is honorable to God. His obedience to the law and the shedding of His blood He may plead as a substitute for the execution of the law upon us -- in short, He may plead the whole of His work as God-man and Mediator. Thus He may give us the full benefit of what He has done to sustain the authority of law and to vindicate the character of the Law-giver, as fulfilling conditions that have rendered it possible for God to be just and still justify the penitent sinner."