Questions about Charles Finney.

Questions about Charles Finney.

I have read several differing accounts as to whether Finney’s revivals resulted in soundly saved believers or false converts that were nowhere to be found several years down the road. Many stats are quoted in apparent affirmation supporting both sides. Is it possible to find the truth in this matter?

It seems most of the issue revolves around his use and/or method of “alter call” and that these method(s) may have resulted from his beliefs/theology.

Does anyone know of any solid, perhaps primary, sources? Many articles claim to have just this…but several are conflicting.

Any and all info will be greatly appreciated.

B. B. Warfield was a great theologian and critic of Finney, and had much to say about his "new measures".

I don't know if it is still in print, but Warfield wrote a book called "Studies in Perfectionism" in which he goes into his disagreements of Finney's methods and theology.

Of course the main point in this argument is the question of original sin, and the view one holds on if man is dead, or able to do what God commands.

The answer to that question ultimately shapes how you do what you do.

There is a 73 page Warfield document here-

[url=http://www.enterhisrest.org/ichabod/warfield_vol8.pdf]Oberlin Perfectionism[/url]

Have fun brother!

Read with horror Finney's own words as a primary source:

“But for sinners to be forensically pronounced just, is impossible and absurd… As we shall see, there are many conditions, while there is but one ground, of the justification of sinners … As has already been said, there can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground 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.”

“The doctrine of imputed righteousness, or that Christ’s obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption.” After all, Christ’s righteousness “could do no more than justify himself. It can never be imputed to us … it was naturally impossible, then, for him to obey in our behalf “ This “representing of the atonement as the ground of the sinner’s justification has been a sad occasion of stumbling to many”

------------------------

Respect for Finney is based on pragmatic principles (surely since people were so stirred up in religion, Finney could not have been a false prophet).

[b]However, we must be honest with the Scripture. If Charles Finney believed what he claimed to believe, he was no Christian at all and falls under the curse of bringing a false gospel.[/b] We can walk into almost any American church today and see his remnants in the form of entertaining, flesh stirring measures and "altar calls".

Finney demonstrates by his own writing that he was fully Pelagian and seems to know not the first thing about the Gospel of Christ.

Our own hesitance to renounce him as a false prophet proves our own bondage to believing that those with good morals must surely be Christian.

[b]We renounce Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, etc.; however, why not Finney? What we fail to realize is that it is the exact same message.[/b] "Be good, and God will bless you." The only difference between the two is the tone of voice and demeanor of the delivery.

It is easily proved. Joel Osteen may say, "I believe God brings into heaven those who are good and upright" with a soft voice and a smile, while Finney declares the exact same thing with a roar and a frown.

The Gospel is much more radical. We are depraved in utter sin, and are only by the atoning sacrifice of Christ. We have rebelled against the sovereign King of the universe and His holy wrath hangs over the head of the lost ready to strike. Yet, in infinite mercy, He has sent His Son to make full atonement for those would trust in Him. May we follow Him all of our days.

[b][i]For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2nd Corinthians 5:21)[/i][/b]

[b][i]Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1)[/i][/b]

Contrary to what many may believe... Finney's view of sin was not too high, it was much too low.

Brothers and sisters, if you want to read books (outside of the Scripture) that talk about godliness and holiness of life. Look to the old Puritan-esque writers (Thomas Watson, Thomas Brooks, Jonathan Edwards, Spurgeon, Ryle, John Owen, John Bunyan, Jeremiah Burroughs, etc).

Also, I would recommend people to go all the way back to Martin Luther's commentary on Galatians. Crossway publishes a paperback edition in their classic commentaries series. It is about 300 pages.

Thank you brother.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[url=http://www.gospeltruth.net/1849OE/490425_savior_frm_sinnin.htm]JESUS, A SAVIOR FROM SINNING[/url]

You should search and read, finney have some strange things going on, but no stranger then the ones that criticise him. Thinking of reformed and calvinistic followers. There has been a few threads before on SI, i dont have time right now to dig, but they are there.

Finneys literary works and sermons are publish at:

gospeltruth.net

A main issue here is that your response to Finney will be affected depending whether you are a calvinist or not or if you believe the doctrine of 'Once saved, Always Saved' and really, they are very long and complicated issues to tackle.

Hi Taylor...

First of all, I think that it is unwise to judge our brother based upon a few quotes that are supposedly his. I'm not sure where you gathered those quotes (you forgot to leave a citation), but Finney only authored one book in his life (his autobiography). The rest of "his" books are actually gathered by hearers from notes of his sermons. The complete accuracy of all of these books can be called into question.

Moreover, I think that the autobiography of Charles Finney, written at the end of his life, is quite telling of his doctrinal views. I'm not an avid fan of Finney -- but I have been extremely blessed by the simple story of his life and accounts of his ministry. From what is written by Finney (and from diaries of his contemporaries), the messages that he preached during the Second Great Awakening throughout New York was extremely simple.

During those crusades, he didn't appear to preach about doctrinal questions about Calvinism (at least, we don't read much about him preaching such sermons). From what we know, Finney preached a very simple message about the dangers of false conversion (or those who couldn't seem to remain "converted"). We know that this had a profound effect on churches throughout New England. Even secular historians record the impact that Finney had on American society -- which mirrored the effect of men like George Whitefield (and hence the "Second Great Awakening").

Regardless, it is difficult to judge a man who has been dead for over 200 years based upon such a small collection of his words. Men are prone to make mistakes with their mouths from time to time. Some of them actually say things that they later regret (believe it or not!). I imagine that a 70 year old David Wilkerson might "second guess" some of the things that he preached when he was 25. The same can probably be said of men of God like Leonard Ravenhill, A. W. Tozer, Paris Reidhead, and other men included in this ministry's sermon database. But thank God that He does not leave us as we are! Each of us are maturing as we walk in the faith!

We renounce Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, etc.; however, why not Finney? What we fail to realize is that it is the exact same message.

You know, I don't think any less of the work of a man of God who has made mistakes with his preaching (especially if he corrects himself as he matures). If I remember correctly, the apostle Peter made a pretty good blunder in both word and action. The apostle Paul even had to rebuke him to his face. Does this negate anything that Peter did or said? No.

Since none of us have ever met Brother Finney, it is safe to assume that we might be hasty in our judgment. I have visited websites that pretty much call the man a "heretic" (and one website even concludes that Finney was "demon possessed"). And the greatest irony? They claim such things as a matter of doctrinal difference. Most of these websites, if you search through them, are noticably quick to point the same "finger of heresy" at other preachers who do not wholeheartedly embrace their particular doctrinal views. Is this really what we are called to do? Can't we discuss the doctrine without laying an accusation into the man?

I have long noticed that those who are the fastest to cry out for "discernment" are often the ones with the most "loud" imagination and "gift of suspicion." I have met people who will offer love, kindness, fellowship and respect UNTIL you say something that is contrary to their own particular doctrinal views or beliefs. Suddenly, their "gift of discernment" kicks in and they quickly part company. They become fiesty and are willing to dismiss anything that you say.

I wonder if the same can be said about Charles Finney? By the claims of some of these websites, you would actually think that Charles Finney was a sinister heretic! Yet I can sympathize with Brother Finney because his conversion experience so closely mirrors my own. I wept when I was a teen while reading Finney's own account of coming to Christ. He articulated his conversion in a manner that immediately brought to mind my own feelings of the night that I was converted in a lonely field at a summer camp. If anything, it seems that this sort of thing is difficult to simply "make up."

Charles Finney was certainly far from perfect. However, I don't think that it is wise to pass judgment upon the man. Yes, his doctrine may (or may not) have been flawed. Yet this is a poor excuse to call into question the integrity of this man's heart or his work -- as so many websites and ministers appear willing to do. Besides, even if he embraced a faulty doctrine at one time, that doesn't necessarily mean that he embraced it throughout his life. If I remember correctly, there were some good brethren here at SermonIndex who at one time held onto some very questionable doctrinal views or spiritual beliefs. Do we discount them simply because they had not matured to the point of where they stand now? As members of the Body of Christ, we should certainly be made of more fraternal stuff than that.

Since there are some excerpts on the "horror of Finney's own words" I thought it proper to get some context to those quotes. And, by the way I have yet to find these words in context to be heretical.

But I guess the problem is that Finney was against key aspects of the Westminster Confession (Calvinism) and they didn't like that so much, thus a smear campaign began.

So if you would like to see some of these things for yourselves, feel free.

[url=http://www.gospeltruth.net/1849OE/490425_savior_frm_sinnin.htm]JESUS, A SAVIOR FROM SINNING[/url]
Sermon by Prof. C.G. Finney

"Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save his people from their sins." --Matt. 1:21.

As compared to saving people IN their sins!
A nice link crssck, thank you sir.

[url=http://www.gospeltruth.net/1861OE/610424_kingdom_conscious.htm]THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN CONSCIOUSNESS[/url]
By PRES. FINNEY.

In this discourse Finney defines righteousness.

I. What is the kingdom of God?

Answer: 1. It is not an outward organization; it is not the visible church, or any ecclesiastical establishment whatever.

2. It is not any material or worldly good.

3. But it is the reign of Christ, the King, in the soul of man.

II. I notice the three particulars which are here said to constitute this kingdom of God, "righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."

The following quote was taken from this sermon,

"It is Christ's righteousness imparted to the soul of man. It is Christ's law or will taking effect in the soul of man, and begetting his own righteousness in us; and thus we come to be partakers of the righteousness of God, not merely by imputation, but by actual experience, and active love and service. I pray you, let no one overlook the true end of righteousness. Do not forget that true righteousness is the very love in kind that is in Christ's own heart, and that led him to do all he had done for mankind."

[url=http://www.gospeltruth.net/1843OE/430705_fulness_in_Christ.htm]FULNESS THERE IS IN CHRIST[/url]
Lectures by Professor Finney.

I. WHAT IS NOT INTENDED BY THE DECLARATION THAT CHRISTIANS ARE COMPLETE IN CHRIST.

II. WHAT IS INTENDED.

III. TO POINT OUT SOME THINGS WHICH ARE DEMANDED BY OUR NATURE, CIRCUMSTANCES, AND CHARACTER, IN ORDER TO COMPLETE WELL-BEING.

IV. THE CONDITIONS ON WHICH THIS COMPLETENESS MAY BE REALIZED IN OUR OWN EXPERIENCE.

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=3761]JUSTIFICATION by Charles G. Finney[/url]

'There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.' Rom. 8:1.

In this discourse, I shall notice,

I. WHAT IT IS TO BE IN CHRIST JESUS.

II. WHAT IS INTENDED BY NO CONDEMNATION.

III. WHY THERE IS NO CONDEMNATION TO THEM WHO ARE IN CHRIST JESUS.

IV. WHAT IS INTENDED BY NOT WALKING AFTER THE FLESH, BUT AFTER THE SPIRIT.

V. NONE, EXCEPT THOSE WHO WALK AFTER THE SPIRIT, ARE IN A JUSTIFIED STATE.

[url=http://www.bibleteacher.org/finney4c.htm]LECTURE 36 JUSTIFICATION[/url]
by Prof. C.G. Finney

Christ is represented in the gospel as sustaining to men three classes of relations.

1. Those which are purely governmental.

2. Those which are purely spiritual.

3. Those which unite both these.

We shall at present consider Him as Christ our justification.

This Lecture 36 contains the context for quote, "But for sinners to be forensically pronounced just ..."

And, also the following paragraph, "The doctrine of imputed righteousness ..."

Both of these previous paragraphs are under the question: What is gospel justification?

I believe the "horror" of these quotations is in the defining terms, such as "forensically" and "imputed". In such, Finney is not saying "righteousness" in its entirety but attacking specific perspectives that he defends to be unscriptural. I would have to say that I was confused at first myself until I understood that point.

Being familiar with more and more of Finney's lectures and sermons, it appears to be consistent that Finney defines a great deal of "salvation" and everything contained in that word in the following way, by his own words, "This love, it should be understood, must necessarily express itself in the life, because the connection between this love and outward action is a connection of necessity. This love consists in the will's devotion to God and to the good of man. It is consecration; it is making common cause with God and man, and unifying ourselves with God's state of mind."

That is to say, God and man working together in Christ. Or, again, in my own words, we must do those things that are only possible because God is at work in us.

The quotes I quoted are in his systematic theology, pages 320-322.

I will not be lovey and mushy on gross error that still leaves its remnants on much of the American church. It should be condemned and the true Gospel should be proclaimed faithfully.

It doesn't matter how holy we think Finney was, his view of the atonement was not Christian.

Finney's views are preached against from Baptists and Presbyterians alike, it is not solely because he didn't like the Westminster Confession. It is because he didn't like the Biblical fact that Christ's righteousness is imputed to those who believe which is the sole basis for our justification.

Read Galatians, Read Romans.

Thank you all for taking the time to respond; much good info has been brought forth. I notice however, that those who are not so thoroughly opposed to Finney usually still issue a warning concerning some of his teachings. I, as I’m sure many of you as well, have become accustom to picking out the ‘theological bones’ found in my Christian diet. That being said, I believe we should not attempt to lump all theological disagreements into the same indiscriminate pile. Chris made a good point in reminding us all of the mistakes that are so easily made in our spiritual infancy; mistakes many of us would love to retract and abolish.

But I also believe it wise to make known the difference between mistakes stemming from immaturity in a young believer as compared to propagating a doctrinal error that could potentially shape a theological landscape. I wish not to engage in a Finney theological debate and will leave this topic for now.

However, the issue of “methods of invitation” particularly surrounding the “alter call” is of concern and interest to me. Also the results of Finney’s revivals seem to be greatly conflicted. Many saying it changed the area permanently, while others say they did not have the lasting effects so many claim.

Anyone having additional insights and/or articles on the topics surrounding this issue please contribute.

We renounce Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, etc.; however, why not Finney? What we fail to realize is that it is the exact same message. "Be good, and God will bless you." The only difference between the two is the tone of voice and demeanor of the delivery.

The thing that gets lost in these conversations is the challenge that Finney faced in his day. He faced what AW Tozer has called 'a stalemate' between God and men. Men were stuck waiting on God to 'move them' and totally placed their own salvation into the hands of God. We cannot understand this today because we have a very much Armenian slant to things overall in our times. Tozer concluded that Finney helped break the stalemate between God and men to get things moving along again. He added that he did not agree with Finney on his conclusions. I think Tozer was right.

The altar call has a history that begins with Finney. But it is completely unfair to charge Finney with the condition of our times. I dare think we have not heard a preacher like Finney and if we had we may all well be different men and women.

Hi Taylor...

It doesn't matter how holy we think Finney was, his view of the atonement was not Christian.

I think that there is a fine line between the spiritual integrity of a man and his doctrine.

Personally, I don't believe in most of the tenants of Calvinism. In fact, I utterly reject some of the arguments about "eternal security." I personally think that the doctrine can be dangerous in the hands of some people. I have met people who attempt to justify the relationship between their ongoing conduct and their eternal, spiritual condition on the grounds of their belief that salvation cannot be "lost" (attributed to the idea about "once saved, always saved"). When I remind them of Scriptures that emphatically state the end of individuals living in sin, they claim what seems to be an "easy way out" Scriptures about the "gifts and calling of God" being "without repentance" as they continue in their sin. Of course, the accusation is that I am promoting salvation through the fulfillment of the Law. I usually try my best to explain that this doesn't have anything to do with "fulfilling the Law" as it does to not continually fulfill the "lusts of the flesh" (and other sins).

In a sense, I personally find that this sort of doctrinal teaching is extremely flawed. But do I reject those who either teach or embrace such a doctrinal stand? Not at all!

As I stated before, Paul the Apostle was forced to confront Peter to his face regarding a doctrinal matter. Peter was a Jew living like a Gentile, yet forcing Gentiles to uphold the Old Covenant's rules and regulations for the Jews. Paul boldly confronted Peter -- even though Paul was barely starting out in his ministry. Obviously, Peter "came to his senses," because he spoke highly of Paul and his Scriptural teachings at a later time (II Peter 3:16).

The point that I am trying to make is that we often use quite a bit of effort to discredit men who simply disagree with us. I know that we should do this with doctrinal issues that are inarguably contrary to Scripture. Yet most of the conflicts within the Body of Christ deal with personal persuasions or inclinations that are not ultimately clear. To be clear: When I am asked which side of the "eternal security" conflict that I stand, I usually say, "Neither." I see some truth in what both sides are saying, mingled with what I feel to be misunderstandings.

Personally, I don't like to read very many books about doctrine. In fact, the only book that I have read completely that is attributed to Finney is his [i]Memoirs[/i] -- which also happens to be the only book actually penned by his own hand. I just don't care to know [u]what[/u] Finney preached. I just think that the best way to understand the truth of a doctrine is to focus only on the Word of God. It is not to say that I don't read books (from time to time) that include doctrinal views. Usually, however, I consult these books only as a means to know what other people believed about an issue -- and not to either validate or criticize my own views.

I imagine that, if we tried hard enough, we could find some issues with any peacher. Yes, for some of them, their flaws are quite obvious to those of us who read and study the Word of God with eagerness. For instance, I know that the teachings of the "prosperity" movement are flawed. I know this because I know what the Word says (or doesn't say) about such things -- and not because I heard someone else explain it. This shouldn't be equated as an attack on prosperity preachers, just a realization that the doctrine that the preacher teaches is flawed. The same can be said about all such doctrines.

But I imagine that, if someone really sought to do so, they could find some flaws within the writings or teachings of men like Leonard Ravenhill. But is that what we are called to do? Are we called as [i]doctrinal examiners[/i]? Are we supposed to "expose" anyone with whom we have a disagreement? Or are we simply supposed to expose error when we happen upon it?

Anyway, these are just a few thoughts. This shouldn't be construed as either an embrace for or attack upon the person of Charles Finney. However, I have read the autobiography of Finney, and I have been challenged and blessed. It isn't that I agree with everything that Finney might (or might not) have taught. However, I think that his aims are transparent enough. He saw a Church that was filled with individuals who did not have a relationship with God or a true conversion experience. He then preached about such things -- and many lives were caused to agonize over their spiritual and eternal status. Come to think of it, I pray that more preachers today would do the same.

:-)

Hello dear friends...Although I cannot gush over sources and references, I will make mention of a conversation I had with Richard Owen Roberts concerning this man Charles Finney.

These thoughts are not word for word what came out of Brother Roberts' mouth but his idea that he presented for concern:

First of all, Finney was saved in a revival that had already been going on, so the Work of God was being manifested as Finney started his own minstry. Finney was not the lone, responsible figure for the revival that he worked in.

Secondly, Finney's systematic theology speaks of revival as a man planting a crop and suggests that if the work is done properly then revival must happen. this is the famous 'if-than' statement. He asserted that if people would only properly use the means God has given, they could secure revival.
This brought the whole focus of revival down. It brought our eyes and focus off the giver of revival onto the workers in revival. This is the major error that is implied from Finney's systematic theology that Brother Roberts suggested.

In no way do i imply that Finney was a bad dude, or did not do a great work for the Lord, but his theology was messed up...It seems he has been known as the great Revivalist when, in fact, he was only riding the waves of something that God had started prior to his conversion...

Just a thought...anyone, anyone?

It is always true that no "Revivalist" ever began a revival. God is the Revivalist and in every account that I have read it often begins with 2 or 3 old ladies or some people devoting themselves to praying off in a corner somewhere.

And as the Lord moves the body comes into action, thus, a leader, or leaders, of some sort are raised up as God calls them up.

The problem I have personally noticed is the extreme imbalances percieved in God's relations to man.

On one hand, we have God being utterly sovereign; even to the point that man becomes nothing more than God's "shoes".

On the other hand, we have God being utterly dependant upon man.

Both of these views have a portion of truth but the extremes to which they have gone in shaping the whole of theology is bizarre.

Though to me it is understandable how these things might happen, just as we have mentioned here for Finney.

If we have everybody waiting around for God to move (as I have heard it said before, "waiting for God to get off His behind and move") then it only stands to reason that we need someone to lead men to action, obedience.

While on the other hand, more so for today, we have a great deal of action and activity but we do not see on the whole God moving WITH US. I have seen a great deal of spirituality but ... where is the truth? God is working and man is working but they are not doing so together, there is a lack of unity.

The "if - then" statements are Scriptural, that should not need to be explained. God is a conditional God, that is exactly why we have a convenant.

"If you do this ... that ... etc."
"Then I will do this ... that ... etc. says God."

I like the way C.S. Lewis wrote it in the Chronicles of Narnia, The Silver Chair. Aslan says to the girl that He called them into Narnia for a purpose; she had work to do. But then she asks Aslan, "didn't we call you to let us in and then we opened the door?" But Aslan is straight-forward, "You would not have called to me unless I had been calling to you."

This is not a new doctrine. God says "if you do ..." not because we can but because He is calling us to do those things that He Himself is already doing. And neither does He call us to go by ourselves but rather He will never leave us nor forsake us.

God working sovereignly in the unseen places and Christ and man working together in the world.

As I have said to many people about Matthew 25, the parable of the sheep and the goats. As we have done to the least of these we have done unto our Lord Jesus. Likewise, it is not I who live but Christ who liveth in me. Thus it is the same as saying, "Christ serving Christ" -- Christ Jesus all in all.

Finney was surely a complete Pelagianist and did not believe in the substitutionary work of Christ. Read more about this misguided soul here:
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm

He was the first to have "altar calls" at the end of his sermons and I don't object to them as long as those who respond don't think there is anything magical about walking to the front. It's what is in your heart (repentance, faith, love).

Hi TrueWitness...

TrueWitness wrote:
Finney was surely a complete Pelagianist and did not believe in the substitutionary work of Christ. Read more about this misguided soul here:
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm

If it comes down to the question of Calvinism (or Pelaginanism -- like you assume about Finney), I must admit that I think the basic tenants of Calvinism (or more precisely, the tenants of "once saved/always saved") are fundamentally flawed. It is my opinion that, in the wrong hands, such a teaching can cause great damage to an individual by offering "false security." From his autobiography, I don't think that Finney believed that people must "work" or "earn" their way to salvation. There is a difference between believing that works are necessary to save the soul -- and a belief that salvation doesn't exist if it is not exemplified by holiness. I believe that Finney was deeply concerned with [i]false security[/i] much more than the concept of [i]eternal security[/i] (if that makes sense). From reports written about Finney and Co. regarding the multitudes of conversions during the Second Great Awakening, it appears that he was highly successful in confronting false conversion that was rampant in the American Church at the time.

He was the first to have "altar calls" at the end of his sermons and I don't object to them as long as those who respond don't think there is anything magical about walking to the front. It's what is in your heart (repentance, faith, love).

It is my belief that Finney did a good job of this. He confronted an American Church that had become filled with false converts who were merely going through a protestantized version of Catholic tradition. People really thought they were saved merely by making a decision to follow Christ and being baptized. This is not salvation. Finney tried to expose that those who continue to live a life of sin are not truly born again. This, in my opinion, is clear from the Scriptures. It was needed for the Church in his day -- and it is desperately needed in today's modern Church!

I'm not concerned at all about what Finney supposedly believed in regard to doctrinal persuasions. However, I find it extremely odd that people are willing to crucify a man based upon some articles that really cannot be verified or validated but by a very limited amount of material (mostly secondhand). It is extremely disheartening that someone is willing to label the man a "wolf in sheep's clothing" over a mere doctrinal issue for which Finney is rumored to have held at one time. Are we truly willing to strain such gnats? I wonder: How many people would say the same thing about Leonard Ravenhill if they knew every single details of what he believed and preached? Believe it or not, I have met people who have labeled Brother Ravenhill a "wolf" too.

It is extremely sad.

:-(

He was the first to have "altar calls" at the end of his sermons and I don't object to them as long as those who respond don't think there is anything magical about walking to the front. It's what is in your heart (repentance, faith, love).

What is more grievous is the seated sinners prayer. Salvation comes about as the person responds to God. I believe Finney understood this. He was a great believer in Holy Ghost conviction. He believed that since God sent man out with a commission that God would back the man in the effort. You will recall that Finney had prayer warriors that showed up to the towns in advance of Finney to began praying with extreme fervency for the meetings. They were also praying during the preaching. I recall one of the statements made as Finney seemed to be a little leary of preaching, it was to the effect "It's OK Bro. Finney, God's come!" They had prevailed in prayer and God moved.

So by no means is Finney any where near the flip attitude of today towards souls. His works on counsel to anxious sinners are some of the best there is that I know of. He pressed the people to surrender to God on the point of controversy that they had with God. He knew that the Holy Spirit was performing His work. He attributed conversion to:

1) The Word of God
2) The Spirit of God
3) The preacher
4) The sinner themselves

Finney showed from the scriptures that there is a 'sense' in which all of these are involved in the conversion of the sinner. Not one or the other- but ALL of them working together. I think Finney was right on [i]that[/i] point.

I wonder: How many people would say the same thing about Leonard Ravenhill if they knew every single details of what he believed and preached? Believe it or not, I have met people who have labeled Brother Ravenhill a "wolf" too.

This is not to you in particular Chris…just building on this statement.

This is one of the reasons I started this investigation. I believe people have poured over the theology of men like Ravenhill, Wesley, and Tozer, just to name a few, and though they may disagree, you don't find the multitude or magnitude of opposition anywhere near that of what has historically been leveled at Finney.

Once again, we have had several ‘opinions’ for and against Finney expressed on this thread, a lot of ‘I believe’ and ‘I once read” statements.

I am still looking for primary sources validating the lasting effects of his ministry. It would seem that history would be able to reveal this answer, but I am still finding equal amounts of information declaring both sides as the correct one; both having witnesses that have returned to the very towns and found contradictory evidence.

Strange that such controversy and skepticism surrounds this one man. I have heard many Arminian and Calvinistic preachers alike quote Ravenhill, Wesley and Tozer, all recognizing the work of God in their lives. But with Finney it is different, he is often portrayed as a hero…or zero.

Thank you all for sharing thus far.

Grace and peace

I am still looking for primary sources validating the lasting effects of his ministry. It would seem that history would be able to reveal this answer, but I am still finding equal amounts of information declaring both sides as the correct one; both having witnesses that have returned to the very towns and found contradictory evidence.

Having been to Oberlin College and Finney's final resting place I found it discouraging that almost no one I met knew anything relevant about Finney. Other false religions were using the church named after him. Pagan insignia and paintings littered the front lawn of the college.

I read where a brother returned lately to where Edwards preached "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and the area is infested with New Age book stores and occult type things. From what I gather, one could hardly tell there had been an awakening.

But I am not sure that the [i]longevity[/i] of a move of God is a valid means of discerning its legitimacy. We need look no farther than the book of Galatians to see how quickly folk can leave off of a genuine move of God to 'something else'. We see it at Corinth and in the Book of Hebrews.

Finney emphasized the need to return and break up the people over and over again as they fell down in their walk with God. This was due to hardness of heart that was believed to be caused by quenching the Spirit and remedied by 'breaking up the fallow ground and seeking the Lord.'

Finney believed the 'Spirit of prayer' must pave the way for any effective preaching. He focused on how it was God's presence that was important. But he believed that if folk would pray and break up their hearts God would move. He targeted assurance and questioned whether folk were really saved.

Finney searched the consciences of men. He flushed out folk hiding in deception and brought them face to face with the question, "Am I really saved?"