Charles G. Finney

[drstevej]

The statement was made that Charles G. Finney was a Calvinist all his life.

Would you agree with that statement?

Yes or No?

Explain why?

I have been accused of not understanding Finney's theology, even though he denied the atonement, total depravity, regeneration, and adopted the "by hook or crook" method:



Perry Miller,The Life of the Mind in America (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1965), p. 27.

I agree with Don Stricklands assessment of Finney:



Charles Finney's Assault Upon Biblical Preaching

Link

And yet, I am wrong and don't understand Finney.

Please vote and give me your opinions also.

Thanks.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Read his theology. He rejects the penal theory of the atonement and with it all of the cardinal reformational doctrines.

=====

Revivals were formerly regarded as miracles… an interposition of Divine power, with which they had nothing to do, and which they had no more agency in producing than they had in producing thunder, or a storm of hail, or an earthquake.

It is only recently that ministers generally have supposed revivals were to be promoted, by the use of means designed and adapted specially to that object. It has been supposed that revivals came just as showers do, sometimes in one town, and sometimes in another, and that ministers and Churches could do nothing more to produce them than they could to make showers of rain come on their own town, when they were falling on a neighboring town.

A revival is as naturally a result of the use of the appropriate means as a crop is of the use of its appropriate means.

Revival Lectures [1834]

 

[drstevej]

Joseph L. Foot, writing in THE LITERARY AND THEOLOGICAL REVIEW, March, 1858, says,

During the ten years hundreds and perhaps thousands were annually reported to be converted on all hands; but now it is admitted, that his (Finney's) real converts are comparatively few. It is declared even by himself that 'the great body of them are a disgrace to religion;' as a consequence of their defections, practical evils, great, terrible, and innumerable, axe in various quarters rushing in on the Church.
​

Asa Mahan in his AUTOBIOGRAPHY states of the revival,

. . .everyone who was concerned in these revivals suffered a sad subsequent lapse; the people were left a dead coal which could not be reignited; the pastors were shorn of all their spiritual power; and the evangelists-among them all, and I was personally acquainted with nearly every one of .the; -I cannot recall a single man, brother Finney and Father Nash excepted, who did not after a few years lose his unction and become equally disqualified for the office of evangelist and that of pastor. (pp. 227-31)​

 

[bradfordl]

Don't you mean the PCUSA?

This is the most liberal wing of the Presbyterian church.

In 1993, the PCA decided we needed to redefine what sin was in light of the homosexual controversy.

God Bless

Till all are one.

No, I meant the PCA, of which I am a member. The PCUSA is apostate, and is the one redefining sin for the sodomites.

The PCA is generally faithful, but there are a few Teaching Elders supporting women deacons and other syncretistic garbage, and they decided some years back not to require strict subscription to the Westminster Standards, which has opened up the floodgates to all sorts of compromised men entering the PCA ordination who seek a better paycheck over faithfulness to their beliefs. If they desire women deacons and elders, they are most welcome to seek employment among the EPC or even PCUSA - I wish they'd leave the PCA alone.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

The statement was made that Charles G. Finney was a Calvinist all his life.

Would you agree with that statement?

Yes or No?

Explain why?

I have been accused of not understanding Finney's theology, even though he denied the atonement, total depravity, regeneration, and adopted the "by hook or crook" method:



Perry Miller,The Life of the Mind in America (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1965), p. 27.

I agree with Don Stricklands assessment of Finney:



Charles Finney's Assault Upon Biblical Preaching

Link

And yet, I am wrong and don't understand Finney.

Please vote and give me your opinions also.

Thanks.

God Bless

Till all are one.

The sum total of Charles G. Finney can be described in two words ~Hugo Grotius~

That which has been is that which will be,
And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.

Ecc 1:9 NASB
​

 

[Theognome]

I would not call Finney an idiot. However, what I would call him gets bleeped out when I type it in.

How about just plain fool? He seems to fit that description based on various Proverbs.

Theognome