doesn't make up for the poor theology he taught - just saying, he did have one admirable quality
Oh I agree sister, you have to give credit wher credit is due.
I was casatgated badly in another area because I said the man was an idiot and because of his tactics it makes one wonder about his converts. One member said he was disappointed in me because of that.
Deacon - I'm EXTREMELY disappointed in you!
There may be plenty points where Finney's theology was in error, but to call him stupid is undignified of you; as is calling into question the salvation of those converted under his ministry.
It's undignified, petty and quite schismatic.
But as I see it, the means does not justify the end. Least wise in this instance.
Let me give you an example.
At one of the deacons meetings, we were discussing whom we would have as our fall revival evangelist. Many names were thrown into the bucket, but we ultimately decided on one.
The invitation was sent and accepted.
We anxiously awaited revival to start. During the revival, at the end of one of the messages, the evangelist asked the deacons to come forward whenever somebody felt led to come to the altar. That way, we could pray with them.
The message that night was a good one, it lasted about 90 minutes. At the end of the service, the evangelist asked for all heads to be bowed. He began appealing to the people with the usual unctions. He then asked for people to raise their hands if they knew they were lost. Of course, all heads were bowed and all eyes were closed, that is, except for the deacons. For about 5 minutes, no hands were raised, then the evangelist started to say, there is one over there, thank you friend. No hand was raised. This went on for about another minute. Eventually, somebody did raise their hand.
In this instance, I lost all respect for this minister. He had adopted the "by any means" method that Finney used.
In oder to bolster church membership, Finney introduced the "anxious bench" what we now call the "altar call." It is nothing more than a way to bolster membership and to put members "on the spot."
A person in church can be saved standing at their pew as good as they can at the altar.
Charles Finney started the "by hook or crook" methods used even today.
now I don't doubt that some individuals were geniunely saved under his ministry. And doubly, because of the tactics he employed, I don't doubt that some "converts" were not really saved.
You stand in a crowd, 9 of your personal friends and you. Those 9 go forward to make a confession, that puts a lot of pressure on you to do the same even if the Holy Spirit is not really working on you.
It is good that the man was an out-spoken proponent of abolition. And it is equally good that an uneducated man could rise to be the President of a College. Much in the same manner John L. Dagg did. But I wonder how many people were tainted with Charles Finney's theology while attending his college?
And the legacy of Charles Finney is still present today. I see it in churches all the time. I see it being expounded on here in the forums. And another legacy is that is a couple of people, college educated people here on the forums, who are under the illusion that Charles G. Finney not only was a "Calvinist," but was a "Calvinist" all his life.
He became a Calvinist in the early years after his conversion to the Christian faith at the age of 29. He remained a Calvinist for the rest of his life,
Just some food for thought.
God Bless
Till all are one.