I just received some free books authored by Charles Finney, I have heard and read some things that could cause me to worry about his teaching.
Has anyone have any opinions concerning Finney?
thanks
Has anyone have any opinions concerning Finney?
Brother there are plenty of them. Here are some links to past conversations on this subject. Perhaps you should post in one of them.
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=15478&forum=35]Finney
A well discussed topic in the forums of Sermonindex.
Blessings,
Jeremy Hulsey
People usually either love or hate Finney. I suggest reading for yourself and seeing what you think.
Nile
I have just started another thread entitled [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=19599&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Charles G Finney and Moral Government
I think Finney was an excellent revivalists and theologian.
I highly recommend reading:
Memoirs of Charles Finney, an autobiography
Lectures on Revival by Charles Finney
Lectures on Systematic Theology by Charles Finney
These books are fantastic. Finney has lot's of critics. Every good preacher has critics. I recommend reading his stuff for yourself.
personally I wouldn't have anything to do with Finney, but I haven't actually read anything he has written so I can't really say much more than that!! :)
personally I wouldn't have anything to do with Finney
I'd have to agree even after reading his stuff :-)
I love reading Finney, especially his books on raising children.I just take the good and dump the bad as with anything.I have found too much that I disagree with yet but I haven't read a whole lot. What he has to say so far I like.
We probably have more disagreements with our own pastors. I just had to walk out of a women's bible conference Saturday because they were singing Shania Twain: "Feel Like A Woman" and wearing men's shirts and short skirts, this is Assemblies of God.
At times like these I wish Charles Finney were here!
http://www.gospeltruth.net/children/let_to_parents_cgf_toc.htm
Reformer,
Your thread actually got me thinking about Finney, so I decided to read one of his sermons in the text section. It is called "Any One Sin Persisted in, is Fatal to the Soul." I found it convicting not to mention a polar opposite to the 'Fluff' that is preached from today's pulpits.
A couple of years ago I read another sermon by Finney called "Breaking up the Fallow Ground". It made me weep over my sinful condition.
He seems to have alot of detractors and alot of people question his theology. But any preacher that makes you seek biblical repentance is worth his salt in my opinion.
You should check out his sermons for yourself.
Murray
I have read part of Finneys' autobiography. I thought it has been incredible; an awesome account of the manifest presence of God coming into people and penetrating hearts that were so opposed and hardened towards the truth. If anyone speaks against Finney, what revivals happened because they were obedient to God? and may he who is without sin throw the first stone!
Brother I mean this in all seriousness, when Mormons experience the "burning of the bosom" they speak of when they pray, is this of God? They believe it is, and thus they believe that they are of the truth.
As I wrote earlier, do some research into the connections between Joseph Smith and Charles Finney and their similar conversion experiences. You will be surprised.
Roaringlamb,
I did some research like you suggested and the articles I found indicated that Smith likely plagarized Finney's account of his conversion.
To compare Joseph Smith to Charles Finney is like comparing Kenneth Copeland to Paul Washer.
Joseph Smith wrote his own bible(The Book of Mormon) and formed a cult whereas Charles Finney's preaching and writing sparked great revivals in the 1830's.
I don't think it is responsible to compare the two.
Murray
My point is simply to get people to stop, and read, see who this man is, and realize the devastating effect he and his methods have had upon American Churches.
I am glad you looked, and yes that is what I have found too. now compare Finney with the secular philosopher Kant. Here is an excerpt from a paper on Kant-
[i]Kant reinterprets the Christian doctrine of the atonement through the death of Jesus Christ. He rejects the view of “vicarious atonement” — that Christ takes away the guilt of previous evil conduct by standing as a substitute for all of us — in favor of an “exemplary” one. Christ thus provides a model in which we recognize steadfast adherence in both word and action to the principle of moral rightness which we already possess in the categorical imperative as the principle for the exercise of our practical reason. Such adherence to the principle of moral rightness is fundamental to what Kant considers to be the “religion of reason.”
Kant's account of moral conversion also touches upon another important theme in Christian theology: the nature and function of the activity of God in the process of moral regeneration. This process, under the heading of “justification,” was a central issue during the sixteenth century Reformation that lead to division of Christian churches in Europe. Christian theology conceptualized this activity of God in justification as part of its complex notion of “grace.” Against this background, Kant's account of human responsibility for turning away from radical evil has frequently been understood as leaving little or no room for the functioning of God's grace within this process. This would align Kant with a much earlier Christian heresy, Pelagianism, (combated by Augustine in the fifth century) that emphasizes the power of human beings to effect their own salvation
Finney too rejected the substitutionary atonement, and also threw out God's work in the conversion of men, leaving men morally able to save themselves.
To me, if a secular, ungodly philosopher is saying the same things as a supposed theologian and revivalist, I would be concerned. Thus I warn my brothers and sisters, that is all I can do.
Roaringlamb,
Truthfully I do not pretend to be an expert on Finney or what he believed in all aspects of his preaching.
All I know is that of the couple of sermons I have read by Finney, I found them very convicting and scriptural.
Some of the stuff you wrote in your last post I actually didn't understand. Not because you were unclear but I am just not learned enough in the deeper things.
If you feel there is something wrong with the man's ministry I appreciate you warning us. If there is something wrong with his preaching it has not been made clear to me at this point.
Murray
I am not being facetious, murdog, when I sum his theology up as such...
Christ's life was the perfect example of holiness, and his death was the perfect demonstration of how mad at sin God is. Christ's death paid the penalty only for "repented sins". Each and every sin, before and after conversion, must be consciously repented of, no matter how small, if one is to have not just assurance of salvation, but salvation at all. This "salvation" is given by the "grace" of God if individuals "repent" and never sin again. If any person lapses into sin, he is temporarily under the wrath of God. It is up to him to repent again because it is in his natural ability to do so. If God allows this person to live long enough to repent again, this is "mercy".
I don't believe I've been unfair in describing it this way, but correct me if this is not right.
Eli Brayley responded this way to such theology...
---
I agree that repentance is a change of mind, as the greek word metaneo shows. And I also agree it is a changed mind about how you will live which inevitably affects all your actions and way of life. However, if our definition of repentance basically amounts to "stop sinning" than what is the difference between this and the Law? The Law also tells us to stop sinning: "Thou shalt not..." What the Law shows us is that we do not keep it because of our wayward hearts. Therefore as Galatians says: "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." (Galatians 3:24)
The requirement of a person being justified is not contigent upon keeping the Law (ceasing from sin), but upon the grace of God accessed solely through faith in the blood of Jesus Christ. A sinner is under the curse of the Law until he finds freedom from the Law in Christ. If acquiring salvation is dependant upon keeping the Law no sinner can be saved. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (Galatians 3:13-14)
What exactly was the blessing of Abraham? It was the promise that through his seed (Christ) all the families of the earth will be blessed. This was a promise given by God to Abraham without condition and before the Law, and the Law which was given 430 years later could not disannul. "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." (Galatians 3:6-7)
Justification must be by faith alone or else it is no more of grace nor of promise. If salvation is dependent upon "repent (stop sinning) and believe" we have serious problems. Unless, of course, we understand repentance as metaneo, a change of mind... from Law to grace: a repentance "from dead works" (Hebrew 6:2) as it is meant to be understood.
Then we can say with Paul, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." (Romans 10:4)
The Jewish nation already had the Law telling them to "stop sinning". Our consciences also do the same. Paul, in Romans 7, describes himself wanting to do right but finding himself unable to do so. He was under the Law (Romans 7:1), and thus a slave to sin. He needed liberty from Law.
True faith is obedience, "the obedience of faith" (Romans 16:26). "Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." (John 6:28-29) Abraham is the father of faith in that he is the example for all those who will be justified and declared righteous before God. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. This was without the works of the Law. This was nearly 40 years before he offered Isaac upon the altar.
"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus..." (Romans 3:21-24)
"Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:27-28)
It's just too plain in Scripture. A sinner cannot be justified by works, nor can law be mixed with grace. A guilty man is justified by grace through his faith in the blood of Christ. This imputes to the man righteousness, apart from the Law. This is why in ages to come we shall be saying: "The LORD our righteousness" and why there will be no boasting.
---
An excellent article on Finney's methods of evangelism was written by J.I.Packer. It is here:
Here is an excerpt:
"This type of evangelism was invented by Charles G. Finney in the 1820’s. He introduced the “protracted meeting,” or, as we should call it, the intensive evangelistic campaign, and the “anxious seat,” a front pew left vacant where at the end of the meeting “the anxious may come and be addressed particularly…and sometimes be conversed with individually.” At the end of his sermon, he would say, “There is the anxious seat; come out, and avow determination to be on the Lord’s side.” (See Revivals of Religion, especially chapter xiv). These were Finney’s much opposed “new measures.”
Now, Finney was a clear-headed and self-confessed Pelagian in his doctrine of man; and this is the reason why his “new measures” were evolved. Finney denied that fallen man is totally unable to repent, believe or do anything spiritually good without grace, and affirmed instead that all men have plenary ability to turn to God at any time. Man is a rebel, but is perfectly free at any time to lay down his arms in surrender. Accordingly, the whole work of the Spirit of God in conversion is to present vividly to man’s mind reasons for making this surrender - that is to say, the Spirit’s work is confined to moral persuasion. Man is always free to reject this persuasion: “Sinners can go to hell in spite of God.” But the stronger the persuasion is, the more likely it is to succeed in the breaking down of man’s resistance. Every means, therefore, of increasing the force and vividness with which truth impinged on the mind - the most frenzied excitement, the most narrowing emotionalism, the most nerve-racking commotion in evangelistic meetings - was a right and proper means of evangelism. Finney gave expression to this principle in the first of his lectures on Revivals of Religion. “To expect to promote religion without excitements is unphilosophical and absurd…until there is sufficient religious principle in the world to put down irreligious excitements, it is in vain to try to promote religion, except by counteracting excitements…There must be excitement sufficient to wake up the dormant moral powers…” And, since every man, if he will only rouse up his “dormant moral powers,” can at any time yield to God and become a Christian, it is the evangelist’s work and duty always to preach for immediate decision, to tell men that it is their duty to come to Christ that instant, and to use all means – such as the rousing appeal and the “anxious seat” - for persuading them to do so. “I tried to shut them up,” he says of a typical mission sermon, “to present faith and repentance, as the thing which God required of them: present and instant acceptance of His will, present and instant acceptance of Christ” (Autobiography, p. 64). It is hardly too much to say that Finney regarded evangelistic preaching as a battle of wills between himself and his hearers, in which it was his responsibility to bring them to breaking point.
Now, if Finney’s doctrine of the natural state of sinful man is right, then his evangelistic methods must be judged right also, for, as he often insisted, the “new measures” were means well adapted to what he held to be the end in view. “It is in such practices that a Pelagian system naturally expresses itself if it seeks to become aggressively evangelistic” (B. B. Warfield). But if his view of man is wrong, then his methods, as we shall see, must be judged disastrous. And this is an issue of the first importance at the present time; for it is Finney’s methods, modified and adapted, which characterize most evangelism today. We do not suggest that all who use them are Pelagians. But we do raise the question, whether the use of such methods is consistent with any other doctrine than Finney’s, and we shall try to show that, if Finney’s doctrine is rejected, then such methods must be judged inappropriate and, indeed, detrimental to the real work of evangelism. It may be said that results justify their use; but the truth is that the majority of Finney’s “converts” backslid and fell away, and so, it seems, have the majority of those since Finney’s day whose “decision” has been secured by the use of such methods. Most modern evangelists seem to have given up expecting more than a small percentage of their “converts” to survive. It is not at all obvious that results justify such methods. We shall suggest later that they have a natural tendency to produce such a crop of false converts as has in fact resulted from their use.
The Puritan type of evangelism, on the other hand, was the consistent expression in practice of the Puritans’ conviction that the conversion of a sinner is a gracious sovereign work of Divine power. We shall spend a little time elaborating this.
The Puritans did not use “conversion” and “regeneration” as technical terms, and so there are slight variations in usage. Perhaps the majority treated the words as synonyms, each denoting the whole process whereby God brings the sinner to his first act of faith. Their technical term for the process was effectual calling; calling being the Scriptural word used to describe the process in Rom. 8:30, 2 Th. 2:14, 2 Tim. 1:9, etc., and the adjective effectual being added to distinguish it from the ineffectual, external calling mentioned in Mt. 20:16, 22:14. Westminster Confession, X. i., puts “calling,” into its theological perspective by an interpretative paraphrase of Rom. 8:30: “All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ.” The Westminster Shorter Catechism analyses the concept of “calling” in its answer to Q. 31: “Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.”
Concerning this effectual calling, three things must be said if we are to grasp the Puritan view:
(i) It is a work of Divine grace; it is not something a man can do for himself or for another. It is the first stage in the application of redemption to those for whom it was won; it is the time when, on the grounds of his eternal, federal, representative union with Christ, the elect sinner is brought by the Holy Ghost into a real, vital, personal union with his Covenant Head and Redeemer. It is thus a gift of free Divine grace.
(ii) It is a work of Divine power. It is effected by the Holy Ghost, who acts both mediately, by the Word, in the mind, giving understanding and conviction, and at the same time immediately, with the Word, in the hidden depths of the heart, implanting new life and power, effectively dethroning sin, and making the sinner both able and willing to respond to the gospel invitation. The Spirit’s work is thus both moral, by persuasion (which all Arminians and Pelagians would allow), and also physical, by power (which they would not)."
I found it convicting not to mention a polar opposite to the 'Fluff' that is preached from today's pulpits.
Would to God a Charles Finney would appear at the Revival Conference with the fires of eternity blazing in his eyes. I think America needs a thousand more Finneys and Father Nashes. Malign him and disagree with him as we may, I think we too soon forget the backing of God on this brother's ministry. God accepted him, and not only that, our Father used him massively. Our correct theology pertaining to the atonement or whatever really does nothing but make us look learned in these forums. But I would like my theological knowledge to shut down bars as well and empty out prisons and immobilize secular universities and change citywide demographics, all while fostering a legendary percentage of genuine conversions.
And I would like to hear such a man preach at the Revival Conference; and I really don't care from what theological camp he is. I want to listen to a man on whom the Spirit of the Lord rests, and I am willing to brush my theological pet peeves aside to learn from God.
(edited to avoid needless provocation)
Brother Paul
I want to listen to a man on whom the Spirit of the Lord rests, and I am willing to brush my theological pet peeves aside to learn from God.
Brother, it is good to hear this. Have been struggling with a great deal of expression in the observable ... latching onto manner of more than a few postings recently. Without going into endless clarifications, something came across the path this morning of a better articulation;
[i]... better left unsaid if the purpose for saying them is to establish a system of doctrine in order to bind men's minds to it.
It is certainly out of context, taken from another excellent article by G.W. North [url=http://mp3.biblebase.com/details.php?file=43]The Holy Spirit In Romans [i]bind men's minds to it
I am not quite sure when a certain ignorance came into play, somewhere between loosing out of the trappings of [i]another gospel
I am just more afraid for that which goes unnoticed, that there can be such an adhesion to these systems whatever their constitution, good, bad, indifferent that with all the thinking done up front for the reader ... well perhaps that is the problem itself.
Something of remarkable notice there as well brother. Praying Nash ... ah for more of this theology!
Well said brother.
Amen, we need more men like tease men! One thing i think why people dont like Finney is maybe because he is a "threat" to their doctrine. He may have some doctrinal issues...but is there anyone who can claim to have all their doctrines right? I havent found two that agrees completely on all things yet
What I so like about Finney is he was a "needed" man....
we need men today, look at our Christianity.... we need 1000 of Finneys...
we need more Wesleys more Withfields and all the rest of the men that stood up and walked with God that extra mile so few travel.... so many and even myself are that mile behind arguing about "good" things, and miss out on the best...
What I so like about Finney is he was a "needed" man....we need men today, look at our Christianity.... we need 1000 of finneys...
No what we need is men who hold to Scripture, we need men like John Knox, or Martin Luther. To be more specific and honest, we need Jesus Christ and His finished work proclaimed.
Just because a man is zealous does not make his lies ok. It is this pragmatic view that the end justifies the means that has so destroyed any semblance of Christianity in our day to that of the time of the Reformation.
Jehovah's Witnesses are very zealous, as are Muslims, but this zeal does not mean they are right.(I am not comparing Finney to these groups)
Any time anyone moves away from the sufficiency of Christ alone they are in danger of making huge errors. When Christ is not enough, and results must be the "proof" of ministry you end up with things like altar calls, and seeker services.
These spring from an unbiblical view of man as just wounded and needing a little help to find his way rather than man being dead and blind and needing life that only God can give.
Many of the practices that folks here rightly question in the church came from Finney and his conversion based ministry. Of course in his day, as in ours, men saw results and therefore thought it was of God. Again pragmatism was the determining factor and not Biblical truth, truth was left in the street because now men had bigger, better congregations, and could validate their ministry before their peers. Too bad Jeremiah didn't borrow some of these ideas, it would have saved him some trouble :-)
Just because a man uses Scripture, does not mean he is telling the truth.
This discussion is locked.
