Charles Finney?

After listening to Keith Green's message "Devotions or Devotion" off of SI, I was introduced to Finney (since most of the sermon is reading off of Finney's work). I have heard wonderful stories about him and God moving through him. However, I have also read that many consider him a heretic and extremely damaging to the Evangelical movement today.I want to know why?? Was Finney a man of God?? Should he be looked up to??? Please break it down into layman's terms...haha, I'm tired of reading theologians ideas on this issue and just want some str8 talk.DOI Pet 4:2

I am intereseted, also. I have heard many reputable speakers praise him, but often with a disclaimer that they don't agree with all his ideas.The accusations I have heard were that he lied to get ordained, in that he said he agreed with all the tenets of his particular denomination. I have also heard that he didn't believe in original sin. When I asked the question of where Finney said sin came from, I never got an answer that I can remember. So I am interested, too. I have done a little research on this subject, but it got to the point that I decided it was not worth the time to study for hours just to find out the theological mistakes of the man, when it is clear he was hungry for God, and the revival He brings. I am convinced that a man can be right on 100 out of 100 tenets of the Christian faith, as far as knowledge is concerned, but still not be rightly related to God. It seems that Finney had clean hands and a pure heart, but was imperfect in his understanding of Biblical theology. An excellent and brief quote from Finney:https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=9603&post_id=75416&order=1&viewmode=flat&pid=75406&forum=36#75416

Finney was a preacher of righteousness. But one of the main problems that I believe people had with him was his emphasis on the will of man involved in salvation. In his autobiography he details his views in contrast to the belief that if God wills one to be saved, it will happen without the involvement or response of the human will. Back then, many believed that if it was God's will to save them, that He simply would drop it on them. So their only hope was to pray and wish upon a star that they would be the "elect". Repentance was not an act of the will in response to the conviction of and with the help of the Holy Spirit, but just a gift to be granted randomly. Finney's message was basically one that put the heart of discipleship immediately into every convert. He didn't have a sinner's prayer type format. He just encouraged people to lay down anything that would stand between them and their salvation and throw everything at the feet of God. We don't start people out that way anymore, that type of preaching is reserved for 20-year "seasoned" Christians. Many people experienced no assurance of salvation under his ministry UNTIL they had put away a particular pet sin that they had. Of course, it was different for everyone. One man experienced no assurance of salvation until he went to pray in the woods(the woods were known in the town as a place get right with God). This was because he expressly knew that God wanted him to pray in the woods, but his pride did not want him to be seen going into the woods to pray. He would do everything BUT go into the woods, he would throw himself into puddles to pray, but he felt no change until he went into the woods.You should read his autobiography if you get a chance, he also more explains the whole "getting into the denomination" thing. I have never heard of the same kind of Holy Spirit conviction and thorough repentance as I have heard from his ministry

I doubt there is a man or woman that doesn't have some opinion or belief that I think them to be wrong about. That doesn't make them to be any less of a man or woman of God.Charles Finney did not believe that God would predestinate a person to be a sinner. He refuted the idea of election and predestination because of this. Some people who accept John Calvin's ideas of predestination think that Finney was a false teacher, mostly over this point.

8-) whats needed is to chew on the meat and spit out the bones.the bible is the only book that you can 100% trust.i think when the bible said study to show yourself approved, it ment we would take that as our referance.the bible sias we can learn from the ant, i am sure we can learn from mr finney, and how God worked through his life.

Here is some info for you:http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htmThere is one calling him a heritic.http://www.stopsinning.net/Johnson.htmThere is one refuting the one calling him a heretic.

whats needed is to chew on the meat and spit out the bones.the bible is the only book that you can 100% trust.i think when the bible said study to show yourself approved, it ment we would take that as our referance.the bible sias we can learn from the ant, i am sure we can learn from mr finney, and how God worked through his life.There are certain 'strengths' that Charles Finney had and also their were what I would consider 'weaknesses'. He has an unorthodox soteriology that has given rise to some extreme teachings that were weighty upon folk who sat under them. I was raised under an Oberlin (Govt of God) 'type' view of salvation. It leaves you feeling like there is no grace- only judgment when you fail. This is not entirely true, but it was Finney's belief. I personally enjoy his revival lectures and accounts. Beyond that I cannot accept much of Finney's theology. I believe it is good to 'proove all things and hold fast to that which is good. You need a good foundation of orthodox salvation doctrines (both Calvin and Armenian) before digging into Finney's. You will be way off if not. Finney had a lawyers education and it affected his doctrine. You should keep this in mind. ;-)

I am interested to look into Finney's 'assurance' views. I have noticed some similar views in the likes of Wesley, Reidhead and others. Wesley had no assurance of salvation though he had been a missionary and preached the gospel. Only after his Aldersgate experience did he receive the 'inner witness.' Reidhead stated in his famous '10 Shekels' sermon that the only people that God witnesses through are those that surrender their life to God.I know this opens up some other cans. One thing I like about this site is the common ground you find between many preachers of the old paths. It seems that Finney, Wesley, and Reidhead preached on the 'inner witness.'I get the feeling that many also preach on this same process and call the steps by different names, and many debate on this subject, not realizing they actually agree more than they think, just referring to certain points with different names.

I personally do believe that Finney did a lot of damage or at the least, helped set up the damage. Look at the fruits that His theology has produced from his time to our time:
1) Revival Psychology. Church services that are setup because of the psychology of revival created by Finney. Why do we do church the way we do? Because according to Finney, it produced the best results. Do we do what we do because we are results driven? Pragmatism is not a fruit of the Spirit. Obedience to the Word of God is fruit.

2) Social Gospel theology. Let's fix up this world and make it a good place to live so that Christ will come back to a nice place to reign and rule. I've read my Bible. I know what the end looks like. It isn't what Finney preached. He left out half of the Gospel--the redemption of creation (I am not talking about universalism, which is total heresy). And that isn't created by Christians moralizing the world. It is done by God creating a new heaven and new earth.

3) Finney said the atonement is "the substitution of Christ’s sufferings for the punishment of sinners, a covering of their sins by his sufferings." This is very wrong for many reasons and it really is a heresy that creeps ALL OVER the church. Jesus Christ being beaten, whipped with a scourge, wearing a crown of thorns, and being crucified are not sufficient punishments to redeem mankind. There are men in this world who have suffered much more than this and yet that alone is not sufficient to save anyone. However it is that Christ endured the wrath of God, being slaughtered by the Father, having become sin. "He became sin who knew no sin that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" is what the scripture states. Do you see the difference? This might seem like a battle of words, but look at how it affects the Gospel! With Finney's theology there is not a necessity for Christ. God could have just forgiven us according to Finney and we could possibly be perfect if we wanted to. Although he may have made much of sin, He made little of God and His Christ. And by and by, he invalidates all those precious OT examples that demonstrate the necessity of Christ.

It takes a long time and a lot more effort than I can put in to dismantle Finney's theology. And I know some of you are lover's of Finney and his ways, but I want to warn you about something that I am very guilty of myself: We can look up to great men of God. We can be inspired by their lives and spurred on toward godliness more and more by their example. But they are not Jesus Christ. Their words do not carry the weight and authority of scripture. If you want to be spurred on and motivated, be motivated by Christ and Him crucified. If you want a man to look up to, fix your eyes on the Savior. If you want someone to model your life after, be conformed to His image. If you want a revivalist to look up to, look up to Christ--the only revivalist who did it all perfectly and was a model of that life which we strive to live.

havok20x, which Writings of Finneys have you read ?

///2) Social Gospel theology///

I think to take Finneys Anti Slavery position and attribute it as him being a founder of the heretic Social Gospel, is a bit profound.

John Wesely also was equally out spoken when it came to Slavery, He also preached against it and wrote against it and supported the Abolition Committee and even tried to assist the abolition campaign.

Does that make John Wesely also an advocate of the social gospel?

I think if we are to be honest,
it was not Edwards, Whitefield, Wesely, or Finney etc. that began nor fuled the social gospel and liberal christianity.
but instead it was things such as new methods of studing the Bible that came out of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries such as the historical-critical method and the philosophys that came out of the enlightenment such as scholaticism, humanism, rationalism, etc that began creeping into the church. Those are the things that founded and fuled liberal christianity and the social gospel.

Hey Saltlicker20 - (interesting screen name. Is there a cool story for it?)

I can say with a good deal of confidence that you are going to get people saying things that are 180 degrees apart with each claiming they are correct.

Proudpapa has some good points.

However, if you want the whole truth you should read his biography. There is no substitute. It will melt away a great deal of the false, harsh, and flatly dishonest criticism you will see posted about Finney on threads.

i won't post rebuttals or debate on it. What is the point, eh?

If you want the actual truth about Finney then get it straight from Finney. It will prove far more beneficial to gain your view from the man himself as opposed to the legion of folks that all have an opinion.

I have an old copy of Finney's Systematic Theology, which is some pretty tough reading. My copy however is full of notes and underlining because I found my way to loving God through his ministry.

Much easier reading covering all his major points, is Helen Wessel's edit of the original autobiography, still available cheap at Amazon.

Finney's ministry secured the salvation of an estimated 500,000 people, and it is said that the retention rate for his converts was around 80%. Compared to modern figures of around 5% or less, it behooves any wise person to take a closer look at the man and his ministry before dismissing him as some kind of nut.

In addition to defining all the words we bandy about in our theological discoursing, his main theme was man's personal obligation to seek God. Prevailing theology of the day was that salvation was only initiated by God for His elect, and it was not the place of totally sinful man to presume he could be saved without first getting a call from God.

Finney argued that it was the obligation of every man to reach out to God in repentance and to get saved- lambasting the idea that God had pre-selected only a few to save, and had condemned the rest. When he preached this, proving God's call to men from the Bible, thousands came running for the altar to be saved. As you might expect, this angered the clergy of the other persuasions and the stamp of heresy was placed on him.

He did not lie to obtain his ordination as a Presbyterian minister, he just refused to accept the tenets of limited election and destroyed the logic of the committee members who had come to examine him and confirm the ordination. Really, it was a dramatic moment in time as described in the autobiography, and the ordination was given. And enemies were made...

Few men in history operated in the power of the Holy Spirit like Charles Finney.

Read the works, then draw any conclusions.

Prior to this discussion, I had read a little here and a little there by Finney. I did not like it. After we started talking, I started reading more of what he had written. I still find some of what he says to be troubling, namely in the Justification section of "Revival Truths." I never met the man, so I can't say "Hey! What did you mean by such and such?" But it seems to me that Finney uses works as a means to maintain justification. It isn't justification by grace through faith resulting in works, which is what I have read time and time again in the scripture. His version is justifcation by faith and works resulting in future grace. And that may seem like such a trivial thing. Especially for believers, because regardless a true believer will meet both criteria (having faith and works). But an unbeliever will not. He can only meet the second and thereby believe that he maintains his salvation by his works.

And yet, there are places where Finney says works are not necessary to secure salvation. It may be that I have a really difficult time understanding him.