The call to salvation is an appeal and Finney was among the great soul winners of his day, with a heart and passion kin to that of Paul the apostle. These three Utube videos are in defense of Finney against sloppy so called scholarship, miss quotes and miss representation of this Godly man.
IT IS IRONIC that Charles Grandison Finney has become a poster boy for so many modern evangelicals. His theology was far from evangelical. As a Christian leader, he was hardly the model of humility or spirituality. Even Finney’s autobiography paints a questionable character. In his own retelling of his life’s story, Finney comes across as stubborn, arrogant—and sometimes even a bit devious.
Playing with Fraud from the Outset
Finney’s ministry was founded on duplicity from the beginning. He obtained his license to preach as a Presbyterian minister by professing adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith. But he later admitted that he was almost totally ignorant of what the document taught. Here, in Finney’s own words, is a description of what occurred when he went before the council whose task it was to determine if he was spiritually qualified and doctrinally sound:
Unexpectedly to myself they asked me if I received the Confession of faith of the Presbyterian church. I had not examined it;—that is, the large work, containing the Catechisms and Presbyterian Confession. This had made no part of my study. I replied that I received it for substance of doctrine, so far as I understood it. But I spoke in a way that plainly implied, I think, that I did not pretend to know much about it. However, I answered honestly, as I understood it at the time [Charles Finney, The Memoirs of Charles Finney: The Complete Restored Text (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1989), 53-54].
Despite his Clintonesque insistence that he “answered honestly,” it is clear that Finney deliberately misled his examiners. (His ability to parse legal terms would have served him well had he been a politician in the late Twentieth Century. But he betrays an appalling brashness for a clergyman in his own era.) Rather than plainly admitting he was utterly ignorant of his denomination’s doctrinal standards, he says he “spoke in a way” that implied (“I think”) that he did not know “much” about those documents. The truth is that he had never even examined the Confession of Faith and knew nothing at all about it. He was woefully unprepared for ordination, and he had no business seeking a license to preach under the presbytery’s auspices. “I was not aware that the rules of the presbytery required them to ask a candidate if he accepted the Presbyterian Confession of faith,” Finney wrote. “Hence I had never read it” [Memoirs, 60.] So when he told his ordination council that he received the Confession “for substance of doctrine,” nothing could have been further from the truth! Nonetheless, the council naively (and all too willingly) took Finney at his word and licensed him to preach.
The call to salvation is an appeal and Finney was among the great soul winners of his day, with a heart and passion kin to that of Paul the apostle. These three Utube videos are in defense of Finney against sloppy so called scholarship, miss quotes and miss representation of this Godly man.
Hmmmm. Out of curiosity, I did a little research online about this individual. Apparently Billy Graham has spoken highly of him, as did Jerry Falwell and many others. From what I can tell, he seems to have been very successful in reaching souls for Jesus Christ.
I also noted several critical articles, which I read. The authors seem to speak favorably of Calvinist views, but are very critical of Finney.
Bottom line? This man believed he had a calling from God. He devoted his life to reaching people for Jesus Christ. Many, many people responded to his appeals by accepting Christ as Savior. No doubt he had his shortcomings. I also doubt that I would agree with all his theology.
Yet, he won many people to Christ, and called them to holy living. I would say, praise God for such a ministry! I recall reading in Corinthians about the problems in that church--yet Paul calls them saints. Paul also seems to warn against a critical, fault-finding spirit. Then we should recognize and appreciate the great work this man did for God, and be silent about his perceived faults. All that is in God's hands, Who alone knows the truth. And let us treat him, and speak of him, as we would lke to be treated and spoken of.
__________________ "Study to show yourself approved unto God, a good workman who needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15
Hmmmm. Out of curiosity, I did a little research online about this individual. Apparently Billy Graham has spoken highly of him, as did Jerry Falwell and many others. From what I can tell, he seems to have been very successful in reaching souls for Jesus Christ.
I also noted several critical articles, which I read. The authors seem to speak favorably of Calvinist views, but are very critical of Finney.
Bottom line? This man believed he had a calling from God. He devoted his life to reaching people for Jesus Christ. Many, many people responded to his appeals by accepting Christ as Savior. No doubt he had his shortcomings. I also doubt that I would agree with all his theology.
Yet, he won many people to Christ, and called them to holy living. I would say, praise God for such a ministry! I recall reading in Corinthians about the problems in that church--yet Paul calls them saints. Paul also seems to warn against a critical, fault-finding spirit. Then we should recognize and appreciate the great work this man did for God, and be silent about his perceived faults. All that is in God's hands, Who alone knows the truth. And let us treat him, and speak of him, as we would lke to be treated and spoken of.
Yes! There are disturbing actions and words on this site, specifically this forum that do not match with the principles of Christian living. I highly suspect there is a sense of "protection" or "safe haven" which promotes this behavior.
The call to salvation is an appeal and Finney was among the great soul winners of his day, with a heart and passion kin to that of Paul the apostle. These three Utube videos are in defense of Finney against sloppy so called scholarship, miss quotes and miss representation of this Godly man.
Lets see here, there are some here, in this thread, who hold Charles G. Finney in "high esteem".
Charles G. Finney had no formal education. He claimed to have a calling to preach the gospel, yet lied in order to obtain his ministerial licesense:
Unexpectedly to myself they asked me if I received the Confession of faith of the Presbyterian church. I had not examined it;—that is, the large work, containing the Catechisms and Presbyterian Confession. This had made no part of my study. I replied that I received it for substance of doctrine, so far as I understood it. But I spoke in a way that plainly implied, I think, that I did not pretend to know much about it. However, I answered honestly, as I understood it at the time [Charles Finney, The Memoirs of Charles Finney: The Complete Restored Text (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1989), 53-54].
Of course, we have Finney to thank for what is now known as the "altar call" or as it was known during his time the "anxious bench".
Charles G. Finney taught that when a Christian, even after salvation commits sin, he has lost his salvation. From his "Systematic Theology":
"Whenever he sins, he must, for the time being, cease to be holy. This is self-evident. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned; he must incur the penalty of the law of God ... If it be said that the precept is still binding upon him, but that with respect to the Christian, the penalty is forever set aside, or abrogated, I reply, that to abrogate the penalty is to repeal the precept, for a precept without penalty is no law. It is only counsel or advice. The Christian, therefore, is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys or Antinomianism is true ... In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground "
(p. 46).
Finney believed that God demanded absolute perfection, but instead of that leading him to seek his perfect righteousness in Christ, he concluded that "... full present obedience is a condition of justification. But again, to the question, can man be justified while sin remains in him? Surely he cannot, either upon legal or gospel principles, unless the law be repealed ... But can he be pardoned and accepted, and justified, in the gospel sense, while sin, any degree of sin, remains in him? Certainly not" (p. 57).
Another fact that these Finney lovers do not recognize is the Charles G. Finney denied that Christ could and did die for sinners, all sinners:
"If he [Christ] had obeyed the Law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non of our salvation"
Ibid, p. 206
In other words, Finney says, is that Christ could not have died for anyone else’s sins than his own. His obedience to the law and his perfect righteousness were sufficient to save him, but could not legally be accepted on behalf of others.
But for the sake of arguement, lets be fair, of course, because Finney did believe that Christ died for something—not for someone, but for something. In other words, he died for a purpose, but not for people. The purpose of that death was to reassert God’s moral government and to lead us to eternal life by example, as Adam’s example excited us to sin. Why did Christ die? God knew that:
The atonement would present to creatures the highest possible motives to virtue. Example is the highest moral influence that can be exerted ... If the benevolence manifested in the atonement does not subdue the selfishness of sinners, their case is hopeless
Ibid, p. 209
Therefore, we are not helpless sinners who need to,’ be redeemed, but wayward sinners who need a demonstration of selflessness so moving that we will be excited to leave off selfishness. Not only did Finney believe that the "moral influence" theory of the atonement was the chief way of understanding the cross; he explicitly denied the substitutionary atonement, which:
assumes that the atonement was a literal payment of a debt, which we have seen does not consist with the nature of the atonement ... It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one
Ibid, p. 217
Charles Finney even went so far as to deny that the new birth was a divine gift, insisting:
"regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness to love or benevolence," as moved by the moral influence of Christ’s moving example..."Original sin, physical regeneration, and all their kindred and resulting dogmas, are alike subversive of the gospel, and repulsive to the human intelligence".
Ibid, p. 224, 236
Charles G. Finney also denies "imputed righteousness":
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 "
Ibid, p. 320-322
Now you can hold Finney up and make him bigger than what the man really was, but anybody who denies that Christ did not die for my sin, your sin, everybodies sin, and could only die to save Himself, is a heretic. Anybody who teaches an absolute obedience to the Law even after salvation teaches "legalism". The very thing the Apostle Paul fought against, Finney teaches!
Anybody who denies that Christ's death could not atone for a mans sin debt, is out of his mind, an idiot!
Anybody who teaches "regeneration" is not a divine gift, that regeneration consists only the sinner changing his ultimate choice, is teaching falsely!
Hold the man in high esteem if you wish, but to me, the man was a heretic and a false teacher spreading false gospels who started his ministry based upon lies.
And these are the facts of one Charles G. Finney as shown from his Lectures on Systematic Theology.
God Bless
Till all are one.
__________________ Remember this Dean:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
"It may be that in the sight of heaven your more worthless and less fit to live than millions"
-The Ghost of Christmas Present to Ebenezer Schrooge
I apologize for making the above statement. After reading it, I realized I was speaking from the human side instead of allowing Christ to speak through me. Sometimes we (especially me) tend to react before thinking. Even though some have not shown Christ like love in their replies, I realize that doesn't mean everyone is that way. Sorry for letting my human side show.
Last edited by pdudgeon; 21st September 2009 at 12:38 PM.
Reason: staff edit-thread clean
Linear Mode
