Charles Finney and his doctrine

Was just wondering why so many people look to Charles Finney as a gret man of God? He was an Arminian/Pelagian to the core and taught that salvation was something that man can accomplish on his own effort. The alter call which he develped was a pragmatic means to show that the Spirit was moving. This first was called the "anxious seat", and has lead many to believe that they are saved since they responded to a sermon by walking down the aisle of a church. Jesus and the Apostles never used these methods, nor did Luther, Calvin, Whitfield, or Spurgeon. He rejected the Presbyterian doctrinal standards, never actually read the confession or creeds and eventually he left the church before the church could censure him. It would do us well to know church history and how we got to where we are today. Thanks for reading, God bless.

Hi,

Welcome! Thanks for the intro!

You were predestined to jump aboard SI today and write your OP.

I know you'll take no offence to my post.

Predestinatingly yours,

_____________________

Hi there, sorry about the intro if it caused some concern. About myself, I attend a Reformed Baptist church but was not brought up in that enviroment. I don't monitor SI, just listen and download some messages from time to time. Most of the time I go to sermonaudio or monergism.com for messages. My upbringing was with Assemblies of God and Southern Baptist. Left the SB when they went purpose driven and found the doctrines of grace through God's providence.
sinnerdave is a odd name but was having difficulty in trying to establish a name and password so that is what I came up with? Not a theology giant but just wondering why certain people seem to get a pass on things like Finney. Large numbers of people being convicted under someone like Finney does not imply conversions to Christ. Christ never went around asking people to accept Him into their heart, nor the sinners prayer, it's not in the bible. Just was wondering why so many do what they do. God can use whoever He pleases to use, I just question Finney and his convictions and his "new measures" that have had long term sweeping effects upon the church. Hope this helps out some. Take care, Dave.

i ust admit im confused about finney ,apart from what you said ,,,,,

i also read he denied the atonment of christ ,saying that christ did not atone for sins , this was writern by somone who was quoting his own word from some sorce of finney writings

but hello to you mr

but iv also herd calvinists like rolf barnard ,talking well about him

so i dont no what to think

Many people twist Finney's words because he does not fit into ultra calvinism. As far as I understand, he did believe in the atonement. Even though he had some different views (who doesn't) it does not make him totally wrong. Concerning altar calls, Jesus and the apostles invited the multitudes to repent and believe the gospel, even though it was not in a church building. An altar call is a method used to give people an opporutnity to pray and for others to pray with them for the mercy of God. The sinner's prayer has been abused, I agree. But did not the publican pray, "Lord, be merciful to me a sinner." No prayer at all guarantee's anything, but Jesus did say to "come unto me." Cannot a person "accept Christ"? Even though that phrase has been abused also. He did say "come" and John 1:12 says,"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name". It is all of grace through faith. Thank God for His saving power!

Thread blocking alert! Someone is questioning Charles Finney again. This thread must be bocked immediately! The OP must be banned and all those who dare question Charles Finney must also be banned from SI and discomunicated from their local assembly (for those who actually fellowship in a church)

NDY, this is a tad bit harsh, don't you think? Methinks one needs to listen to this poster to see what his questions are...He may have something to teach us - we all are learning from each other - or he may learn from us.

God bless.

Sadly, although Finney was a strong proponent of repentance and holiness, he was also steeped so much in Old Testament doctrine that he rejected nearly all New Testament teaching about grace. In the link below, I want you to read only the words of Finney himself regarding salvation and atonement. It is truly shocking. My purpose is that we might learn from this man's grave error and not simply pile-on in hatred for the man himself.

http://www.issuesetcarchive.org/issues_site/resource/journals/horton.htm

Oh Yeah! ANOTHER thread to bash Finney! Yippee skippee!
Ginnyrose stated

this is a tad bit harsh, don't you think? Methinks one needs to listen to this poster to see what his questions are

There are an enormous amount of threads devoted to Finney bashing already. The one piece of good advice given, if you want to research it, is to diligently NOT listen to anything posted here that is someones "view or opinion" of Finney and his work. ONLY take Finneys words...IN CONTEXT.. from the actual source. Otherwise you will never get the truth. A second option is to avoid the witch hunt altogether.... a wise choice it would seem. If you wish though... here is Finney in his own words.

"I laid great stress upon prayer as an indespensable condition of promoting the revival. The atonement of Jesus Christ, His divinity, His divine mission, His perfect life, His vicarious death, His resurrection, repentance, faith, JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH, and all the kindred doctrines, were discussed as thoroughly as I was able, and pressed home, and were manifestly made efficacious by the power of the Holy Ghost".
Memoirs of Chales G Finney, Written by Chalres G. Finney, Published 1876, Page 77. (caps mine)

You will in fact find that those who accused Finney in his day often had little they actually disagreed with when they met and discussed things with Finney. However, they were a great deal jealous of the results that followed where he ministered. But don't take my, or anyones, word for it. Read Finney IN CONTEXT if you wish to pursue it further.

There are plenty of threads on this, so I would encourage sinnerdave and others to read those. There was an excellent interview/debate about Charles Finney's doctrine between Dr. Michael Brown and Jerry Johnson of the Nicene Council (a calvinist apologetics ministry). It is a very scholarly debate and both have done commendable research. For sinnerdave, this might answer your question as to why some scholarly well-founded Christians including Christian leaders still admire Charles Finney, though I doubt anyone would fully subscribe to his doctrine.

http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2011/05/17/was-charles-finney-a-false-prophet-dr-brown-interviews-jerry-johnson-and-the-power-of-conviction/

I think Finney has got to be one of the most maliciously misquoted, and therefore, misunderstood ministers in all of Christianity. I too almost fell prey and jumped on the Finney destruction bandwagon years ago, but thankfully, I gave a few of his sermons an honest whirl and came away with a genuine admiration and respect for the man - despite certain disagreements - as did Spurgeon, when asked of his opinion of Finney. After reading serveral of his sermons, there was no doubt that the man loved Christ with all his heart...and sought to obey his Master implicitly in the only way he understood. His doctrinal stances were essentially crafted in harsh response to the prevailing and often militant hyper-reformed mainline persuasions of his day.

We need to understand that God will often test us by using a man such as Finney. He will test to see which is more important to our spirits: a love of Jesus Christ, and of men and of lost souls, and of obeying the Holy Spirit, (despite doctrinal camps), or the cold, calculated love of theology. God used men like Wesley and Finney not only to save myriads of sinners, but also to flush out and expose the truth in the hearts of dissenting reformed believers. Paul in the Philippian prison was happy that regardless of motive, Christ was being preached. I am also happy that Finney preached Christ and that multitudes of souls were genuinely saved under his preaching, and that God confounded the theologically wise with his amazing revivals. It humbles me. It shows me how big God is, how vast His wisdom, and how all things indeed work together for good according to His purpose.

If this thread continues to speak ill of Finney, or of any other man, reformed or freewill, it will be unfortunately closed. Let's edify each other on SermonIndex without dropping another man's ministry in the mud. It's just not necessary, and our Heavenly Father is well-pleased when men unite despite disagreements.

Brother Paul

Wow BrotherTom-

If you could only find a round about way to tie him to the myriad of "Catholic descended mystics", IHOP, the prophetic movement in general, YWAM,..or whoever is being slandered today in the name of Christ.. you would then be in rare form with the scathing you could unleash on Finney!

Again..."I laid great stress upon prayer as an indespensable condition of promoting the revival. The atonement of Jesus Christ, His divinity, His divine mission, His perfect life, His vicarious death, His resurrection, repentance, faith, JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH, and all the kindred doctrines, were discussed as thoroughly as I was able, and pressed home, and were manifestly made efficacious by the power of the Holy Ghost".
Memoirs of Chales G Finney, Written by Chalres G. Finney, Published 1876, Page 77. (caps mine)

Kindly please point to the heresy in the above.

If Finney and his resulting fruit of ministry were heretical then by all means merciful God deliver us from the self righteous Pharisees that see fit to judge every mans heart but their own and instead give us an over abundance of Finney like heretics that preach, AND I QUOTE.."The atonement of Jesus Christ, His divinity, His divine mission, His perfect life, His vicarious death, His resurrection, repentance, faith, JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH, and all the kindred doctrines". Memoirs of Chales G Finney. page 77

Criticize Finney further at your own risk.

Why is that those who bear so little fruit in their own lives see it as their call to slander the fruit of another mans ministry?

Why is that those who bear so little fruit in their own lives see it as their call to slander the fruit of another mans ministry?

PaulWest-

That is well said brother. Thank you for keeping the main thing the main thing. Your balance and loving perspective is much appreciated!

Blessings!

Solomon101

Hi BrotherTom,

It appears that some people really stretch in their attempts to connect-the-dots in regard to what Charles Finney actually wrote (the only book that he actually penned was his memoirs/autobiography) and what he undoubtedly believed.

Unfortunately (or perhaps, fortunately), Mr. Finney isn't around for us to ascertain just EXACTLY what it was that he believed. In addition, it is difficult to tell if he believed something throughout the entire extent of his life.

As for the accusation that Finney waged a "war" on hyper-Calvinism: I know many people -- including many here at SermonIndex -- who are strongly opposed to Calvinism an/or Hyper-Calvinism. To call it a "war" is quite presumptuous. During various times of his life, Finney may have rejected ALL of Calvinism or just parts of it. Moreover, it would be a stretch to call it a "war" any more than those who espouse Calvinism could be accused of waging "war" on those who disagree with it.

I find it strange that there are individuals who are willing to publicly label Finney as a heretic or claim that he "denied Christ." Personally, I read and found much encouragement from his autobiography. I have skimmed through a few of the lectures (again...he did not write them) but only because of individuals who are cited them here at SermonIndex.

One thing that I did find was that those who made claims about Finney's views on certain matters often did so with citing a particular passage of his writings...and not his writings as a whole. It almost seems...sectarian...in terms of how certain sects can pick out a verse and present a conclusion based solely on the passage (rather than the Word of God as a whole) and that as a binding fact.

I have been very blessed by men like Dave Wilkerson, Keith Green, Leonard Ravenhill, Tozer, Washer, etc... However, I don't agree with EVERY single thing that have taught. Why? They are just men. They are just as fallible as men like Luther, Bunyan, Finney, Spurgeon, Moody, Whitefield or Edwards. I agree with the passion by which they proclaimed a need to take the things of God seriously. I agree with much of what each person may have said. However, each of their words must be judged on a truth-by-truth basis.

When it comes to Finney, I am blessed to read his conversion to Christ. It strongly mirrors my own. I remember weeping the first time that I read how he came to Christ while walking down a lonely road...when the knowledge of the depth of his sins and need for Christ had overwhelmed him. When I first read his words from his autobiography, I had only known the Lord for a short time. Yet, it sounded so similar to how I met the Lord while standing alone in a field one late night at a summer camp.

I am thankful that he stood up to the pathetic condition of the Church during his meetings. Many of those people who lived during that time had NEVER been confronted with a need for repentance -- let alone a life of repentance and holiness. The fact that his crusade largely took place INSIDE of existing congregations -- and that the bulk of the people repenting were already CHURCH members -- is demonstrative that something was very wrong with many New York congregations at the time. It was a different society at the time...where most people attended church "religiously"...and a society in which many people were likely "going through the motions" of the "Christian faith" where many may never have had a "born again" experience.

I suppose that I feel concern that many people are willing to throw out the rhetorical "baby with the bath water." To dismiss Finney as a "heretic" because of something in particular that he purportedly said (and for which we can't ask him about) or that someone wrote that he said (in the case of every book OTHER THAN his autobiography) reminds me of the last verse in your post.

Galatians 5:3
3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

Paul was a strong advocate against being bound by the letter of the Law. Not only did he dismiss the "need" for circumcision, but he actively discouraged it. Paul even rebuked Peter over the concept of circumcision...and trying to force Old Covenant customs upon Gentiles (Galatians 2:14). Yet this same apostle had Timothy circumcised as an adult because of the Jews in the area that they were visiting (Acts 16:1-3).

If someone only focused upon that one passage in Acts, Paul could be depicted as a man-pleasing preacher who had fallen under the same error as Peter in Galatians chapter 2. In fact, there are people who take particular things that Paul has said and turned it into things that they just weren't meant to mean.

I am not an expert in Charles Finney...and have NO DESIRE to be. He is just a preacher from the 19th Century who is long since dead. Now, I am aware that he was central to a time that secular historians call the "Second Great Awakening." I remember sitting through a classroom at my secular university listening to lectures discussing Finney and those "revivals" and the extent of their impact on 19th Century American society.

Yet we cannot contact the man. He is not here to answer his fans, critics or accusers. He is dead and gone...and men just make theories about what he said and what he meant.

Personally, I think that it is best to leave Finney alone...and rather focus on the concepts. We can discuss the concepts themselves WITHOUT meandering into the man or men who may (or may not) have believed and taught such things. I don't think that it is wise to pretend to know the eternal status of Finney (or any other popular preacher).