Who is the real Charles Finney?

[Humble Disciple]

Charles Finney is the evangelist modern-day Calvinists love to hate, probably because, like Billy Graham, he was a Presbyterian who ditched Calvinism and ended up winning many souls for Christ.

Here is a Calvinist's video smearing Charles Finney, claiming that Finney regarded revivalism as a mere science, without the need for God's help:

Here is the true story of Charles Finney, that Finney would not visit a village or town until after his associate, Daniel Nash, visited it and prayed for God's help to prepare the town for revival:

Here is another Calvinist's smear of Charles Finney:

Benjamin Warfield, a Calvinist professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, claimed, "God might be eliminated from it [Finney's theology] entirely without essentially changing its character."[25]
Charles Grandison Finney - Wikipedia

Here is what Charles Finney really taught, in his own words:

4. Righteousness is sustained in the human soul by the indwelling of Christ through faith, and in no other way. It cannot be sustained by purposes or resolutions self-originated and not inwrought by the Spirit of Christ. Through faith Christ first gains ascendancy in the human heart, and through faith he maintains this ascendancy and reigns as king in the soul...
6. All outward conformity to the law and commandments of God that does not proceed from Christ, working in the soul by his Holy Spirit, is self-righteousness. All true righteousness, then, is the righteousness of faith, or a righteousness secured by Christ through faith in him.
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RIGHTEOUSNESS by Charles G. Finney

The perfection required is not the infinite moral perfection which God has; because man, being a finite creature, is not capable of infinite affections. God being infinite in himself, for him to be perfect is to be infinitely perfect. But this is not required of us.
https://www.gospeltruth.net/1837LTPC/ltpc08_christian_perfectio.htm

It seems that modern-day Calvinists are jealous or resentful of Charles Finney for winning more souls to Christ than they do, so they smear him. This is quite unlike George Whitefield who, despite his Calvinism, worked alongside John Wesley to convert as many souls as possible.

If Billy Graham weren't so recently deceased, I would imagine that modern-day Calvinists would be doing anything they can to smear his legacy too.

This is not to say that all Calvinists view Finney the same way, but John MacArthur and his ilk despise Finney as practically the antichrist.

Whether we like it or not, Finney-style revivalism has had a lot of influence on denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention. Finney was the inventor of the altar call:

He is credited with being the first preacher to employ the method of altar calls to encourage people to make a decision for Christ. This was, according to Finney, a result of there being so many conversions during his revivals that he could not account for all of them while they were happening. Thus, Finney began to ask that all those who had been converted in a day come up to the altar in the evening to be acknowledged.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Charles-Finney.html

Was Finney "too political" or "too woke" for John MacArthur and his ilk by denying communion to slaveholders while providing equal education to women and minorities?

Together with several other evangelical leaders, his religious views led him to promote social reforms, such as abolitionism and equal education for women and African Americans. From 1835 he taught at Oberlin College of Ohio, which accepted students without regard to race or sex. He served as its second president from 1851 to 1865, and its faculty and students were activists for abolitionism, the Underground Railroad, and universal education...

After a dramatic conversion experience and baptism into the Holy Spirit he gave up legal practice to preach the Gospel...

In addition to becoming a widely-popular Christian evangelist, Finney was involved with social reforms, particularly the abolitionist movement. Finney frequently denounced slavery from the pulpit, called it a "great national sin," and refused Holy Communion to slaveholders.[19]
Charles Grandison Finney - Wikipedia

 

[Humble Disciple]

The complete works of Charles Finney are freely available online for people to read for themselves, and draw their own conclusions in light of scripture:
An OnLine site for the Complete WORKS of CHARLES G. FINNEY

One need not agree, word-for-word, with everything Finney ever taught in order to appreciate the sheer magnitude of people who were saved, by God's help, through his preaching.

Charles Finney was influential on the Booths, the founders of the Salvation Army, as well as on Charles Spurgeon, the most well-known Calvinist of his time:

Up to 50,000 people a week were converted to Christ after hearing Finney's preaching, most of whom remained life-long and repentant believers. Imagine if we had this kind of revival today.

In this video, Leighton Flowers demolishes John MacArthur's strawman arguments against Jacobus Arminius and Charles Finney as somehow being Palagean:

While I don't find Flowers' own system of provisionism compelling, he's at least good at dispelling the lies that Calvinists like John MacArthur tell about Molinism, Arminianism, Finneyism, etc.

 

[Iconoclast]

Your true colors and identity are now revealed as many have correctly suspected
Why this dishonest charade?
No one goes from presenting Calvinism,to Finneys works overnight
Finney himself said his supposed converts were a disgrace.
You initially deleted your Finney post, changed the second commandment violation into an image of your guy, Finney?
lol...why should we pay attention or take anything you say as legitimate?

 

[Humble Disciple]

Finney himself said his supposed converts were a disgrace.

Not so fast...

The above video breaks down the data as to how many people were converted, with God's help, by Finney's preaching, and of them, how many remained life-long believers.

Do you have anything specific, in Finney's own words, that you'd like to object to or are you just parroting John MacArthur? Are you going to start attacking Billy Graham too?

If George Whitefield, a Calvinist, could work with John Wesley, an Arminian, in winning many for Christ, and if Charles Spurgeon could pray that England would have the same level of revival as Charles Finney's America, what does that say about you?

 

[Reynolds]

The complete works of Charles Finney are freely available online for people to read for themselves, and draw their own conclusions in light of scripture:
An OnLine site for the Complete WORKS of CHARLES G. FINNEY

One need not agree, word-for-word, with everything Finney ever taught in order to appreciate the sheer magnitude of people who were saved, by God's help, through his preaching.

Charles Finney was influential on the Booths, the founders of the Salvation Army, as well as on Charles Spurgeon, the most well-known Calvinist of his time:

Up to 50,000 people a week were converted to Christ after hearing Finney's preaching, most of whom remained life-long and repentant believers. Imagine if we had this kind of revival today.

In this video, Leighton Flowers demolishes John MacArthur's strawman arguments against Jacobus Arminius and Charles Finney as somehow being Palagean:

While I don't find Flowers' own system of provisionism compelling, he's at least good at dispelling the lies that Calvinists like John MacArthur tell about Molinism, Arminianism, Finneyism, etc.

I don't think L. Flowers has ever "demolished" anything.

 

[37818]

Wow. Just reading what is explained (not explained) in this thread does not tell me what the real problem is, if any, with Charles Finney. What is an actual Biblical point of disagreement? I read here more heat than light.

 

[Humble Disciple]

Wow. Just reading what is explained (not explained) in this thread does not tell me what the real problem is, if any, with Charles Finney. What is an actual Biblical point of disagreement? I read here more heat than light.

I accomplished everything I intended to accomplish in removing the blinders of anti-Calvinists, and now I'm doing the same for the other side, to the glory of God alone. Are we not all brothers and sisters in Christ?

 

[Dave G]

Charles Finney is the evangelist modern-day Calvinists love to hate, probably because, like Billy Graham, he was a Presbyterian who ditched Calvinism and ended up winning many souls for Christ.

God is the "soul winner", HD, and while I don't hold with believers smearing any man, I do know who Charles Finney was and what his methods were.

What I do understand about him is that he is one of the men, if not the man, who is generally credited with making the modern "invitational system" as we know it, popular;
A method that has been refined to a very sharp point nowadays, and is filled with what I consider to be ( having sat under it for decades ) "emotional hooks" that seem designed by men in an effort to convince other men to "turn their lives over to God and accept Christ as one's personal Saviour", which Peter, Paul and the other apostles did not do.

Contrary to modern methods, Paul, for example, preached Christ crucified and repentance towards God...and he then was used of God to further teach the hows and whys of God saving people...
These "hows and whys" can be found in Romans 8, Romans 9, Romans 10 and Romans 11 ( as well as Ephesians 1, Ephesians 2, 2 Thessalonians 2 and many other places ) for example.

Secondly,
Paul did not make use of an "invitation system" when he preached God's word to Gentiles ( he did contend with Jews in their synagogues, but that was because of God's commandment that it first start with the Jews )...
and he never preached to Gentiles using methods even remotely like those of the many preachers that we see on TV and hear on radio today.


One only has to examine the book of Acts, carefully, to see this.

 

[Dave G]

I accomplished everything I intended to accomplish in removing the blinders of anti-Calvinists, and now I'm doing the same for the other side, to the glory of God alone. Are we not all brothers and sisters in Christ?

The fact of the matter is, what's being discussed on this forum, other forums, in print and sometimes on other media platforms today and for centuries now, are two ( and sometimes more than two ) very different views of how salvation is accomplished by God.

Realistically, they cannot all exist in harmony without violating the terms of Galatians 1.
The details of each are what makes them different Gospels.
No matter which "side" is correct, there is no middle ground and there can be no middle ground,
If one is serious about what they each believe and teach.

Either "Calvinism" is preached from God's churches, "Wesleyan Arminianism" is preached from the churches, "Molinism" is preached from the churches, "Thomism" is preached from the churches, or "Traditionalism" is preached from the churches...
I could also throw in a host of other "isms" from centuries past like "Arianism", "Modalism", "Deism", "Doceticism", "Marcionism" and " Pelagianism ", and I think I've made my point:

There is only one faith once delivered unto the saints ( Jude 1:3 ), and there is only one Gospel...
and it's no one's business or privilege to smear anyone.

Since no one seems able to agree on the truth, we go our separate ways teaching and preaching what we each see as being developed in the Scriptures,
and the Lord be the Judge on the final day...


As is His right.

 

[Humble Disciple]

God is the "soul winner", HD, and while I don't hold with believers smearing any man, I do know who Charles Finney was and what his methods were.

What I do understand about him is that he is one of the men, if not the man, who is generally credited with making the modern "invitational system" as we know it, popular;
A method that has been refined to a very sharp point nowadays, and is filled with what I consider to be ( having sat under it for decades ) "emotional hooks" that seem designed by men in an effort to convince other men to "turn their lives over to God and accept Christ as one's personal Saviour", which Peter, Paul and the other apostles did not do.

Contrary to modern methods, Paul, for example, preached Christ crucified and repentance towards God...and he then was used of God to further teach the hows and whys of God saving people...
These "hows and whys" can be found in Romans 8, Romans 9, Romans 10 and Romans 11 ( as well as Ephesians 1, Ephesians 2, 2 Thessalonians 2 and many other places ) for example.

Secondly,
Paul did not make use of an "invitation system" when he preached God's word to Gentiles ( he did contend with Jews in their synagogues, but that was because of God's commandment that it first start with the Jews )...
and he never preached to Gentiles using methods even remotely like those of the many preachers that we see on TV and hear on radio today.


One only has to examine the book of Acts, carefully, to see this.

Jesus said that you will know them by their fruits. This video breaks down how many people were saved by hearing Finney's preaching, and of them, how many remained lifelong believers:

If not for Finney's profound experience of the Holy Spirit at his conversation and the constant prayers of his associates, Finney's preaching would have never been successful.

 

[Humble Disciple]

The fact of the matter is, what's being discussed on this forum, other forums, in print and sometimes on other media platforms today and for centuries now, are two ( and sometimes more than two ) very different views of how salvation is accomplished by God.

Realistically, they cannot all exist in harmony without violating the terms of Galatians 1.
The details of each are what makes them different Gospels.
No matter which "side" is correct, there is no middle ground and there can be no middle ground,
If one is serious about what they each believe and teach.

Either "Calvinism" is preached from God's churches, "Wesleyan Arminianism" is preached from the churches, "Molinism" is preached from the churches, "Thomism" is preached from the churches, or "Traditionalism" is preached from the churches...
I could also throw in a host of other "isms" from centuries past like "Arianism", "Modalism", "Deism", "Doceticism", "Marcionism" and " Pelagianism ", and I think I've made my point:

There is only one faith once delivered unto the saints ( Jude 1:3 ), and there is only one Gospel...
and it's no one's business or privilege to smear anyone.

Since no one seems able to agree on the truth, we go our separate ways teaching and preaching what we each see as being developed in the Scriptures,
and the Lord be the Judge on the final day...


As is His right.

Christians can agree to disagree on matters that are unessential to salvation. That's why the New Hampshire Confession and the BFM were written in such a way that both Arminians and Calvinists can accept, and why John Wesley and George Whitefield were able to agree to disagree on predestination and accomplish great things together for the Gospel.

 

[Humble Disciple]

What made Charles Finney more in line with Wesleyanism than with early Protestantism was his emphasis on imparted righteous rather imputed righteousness, that Christ died to save people from sin rather than just to give them an excuse to continue in sin:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imparted_righteousness

 

[AustinC]

Jesus said that you will know them by their fruits. This video breaks down how many people were saved by hearing Finney's preaching, and of them, how many remained lifelong believers:

If not for Finney's profound experience of the Holy Spirit at his conversation and the constant prayers of his associates, Finney's preaching would have never been successful.

We get Joseph Smith from Charles Finney camp meetings...
Mormonism has many parallels with Islam.
Indeed, God is our judge. We are either justified by faith or we are justified by faith plus merited works.

Finney's own words from his systematic theology regarding when a Christian sins:
"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)."

The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney | Monergism

 

[Humble Disciple]

It's very deceptive for John MacArthur and his ilk to dismiss Charles Finney as somehow Pelagian, when Finney really taught that it's only by God's grace, as purchased on the cross, that we are enabled to obey the commandments of Christ.

Jesus said that, if you love Him, you will keep His commandments (John 14:15) and Hebrews 12:14 says that, without holiness, no one will see the Lord. Without God's sanctifying grace, this righteousness wouldn't be possible.

 

[Iconoclast]

In The Oberlin Evangelist, in 1875, Finney wrote that “If I had my time over again, I would preach nothing but holiness. My converts are a disgrace to religion, and if I had my time over again, I would preach nothing but holiness.” Quoted by D. M. Lloyd–Jones, Conversions: Psychological & Spiritual. InterVarsity Press, 1974. p. 31. Quoted also in footnote 11

 

[AustinC]

It's very deceptive for John MacArthur and his ilk to dismiss Charles Finney as somehow Pelagian, when Finney really taught that it's only by God's grace, as purchased on the cross, that we are enabled to obey the commandments of Christ.

Jesus said that, if you love Him, you will keep His commandments (John 14:15) and Hebrews 12:14 says that, without holiness, no one will see the Lord. Without God's sanctifying grace, this righteousness wouldn't be possible.

Do you know who Michael Horton is? He's not in a dispensational camp at all. This shows you speak out of ignorance while you attempt to promote a theology not represented in the Bible.
You have consistently shown you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Iconoclast]

.Joseph Ives Foot [himself a Pelagian perfectionist], writing in 1838, is constrained to say: “During 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 these defections, practical evils, great, terrible, and innumerable, are in various quarters rushing in on the Church.” 1022

It is very true that Finney could not conceal the instability of his converts from himself.

Later he found a reason for it. It was because he had brought them only into traditional Christianity, and not into perfectionism. “While I inculcated the common views,” he says, meaning the common views as to an as yet imperfect sanctification, “I was often instrumental in bringing Christians under great conviction, and into a state of temporary repentance and faith—it is thus that he speaks of his entire evangelistic work up to 1836!—“but,” he continues, “falling short of urging them up to a point where they would become so acquainted with Christ as to abide in him, they would of course soon relapse again into their former state. I seldom saw, and can now understand that I had no reason to expect to see, under the instruction which I then gave, such a state of religious principle, such steady and confirmed walking with God among Christians, as I have seen since the change in my views and instructions.” There lies in this passage an affecting acknowledgment of the failure of his early evangelistic labors to produce permanent results. One of the odd things connected with it, however, is that Finney fancies that, had he preached perfectionism, the effect might have been different—meaning that the perfectionism of his converts would have protected them from sinning...

 

[Iconoclast]

This trend of less doctrine and more emotionalism and sensationalism began to characterize much of British Christianity. The influence of the “New Divinity,” and especially of Finney through his writings and public preaching, had a negative effect on Great Britain. Bishop Ryle wrote concerning the influence of “revivalism” and the general decay of the nineteenth century the following:

There is much in the attitude of professing Christians in this day which fills me with concern, and makes me full of fear for the future. There is an amazing ignorance of Scripture among many, and a consequent want of established, solid religion. In no other way can I account for the ease with which people are, like children, 'tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine'. There is an Athenian love of novelty abroad, and a morbid distaste for anything old and regular, and in the beaten path of our forefathers.
Thousands will crowd to hear a new voice and a new doctrine, without considering for a moment whether what they hear is true.
There is an incessant craving after any teaching which is sensational, and exciting, and rousing to the feelings. There is an unhealthy appetite for a sort of spasmodic and hysterical Christianity.

The religious life of many is little better than spiritual dram–drinking. Crowds, and crying, and hot rooms, and high–flown singing, and an incessant rousing of the emotions, are the only things which many care for. Inability to distinguish differences in doctrine is spreading far and wide, and so long as the preacher is 'clever' and 'earnest', hundreds seem to think it must be all right, and call you dreadfully 'narrow and uncharitable' if you hint that he is unsound! All this is very sad. For myself, I am aware that I am no longer a young minister. My mind stiffens, and I cannot easily receive any new doctrine. 'The old is better'.1020

1019 Effion Evans, The Welsh Revival of 1904, p. 176–177. 1020 J. C. Ryle, Holiness, p. xvii. 365

 

[Iconoclast]

APOSTASY

Finney certainly believed that a true Christian, although once “saved,” could apostatize and be lost. The preceding sections on regeneration, justification and perfectionism [sanctification] make this quite clear. He directly states so, when dealing with apostasy, but, with his usual lawyer–mentality, seeks to confuse the issue with his verbosity:

Does A Christian Cease To Be A Christian, Whenever He Commits A Sin? I Answer:

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 he does not, it must be because the law of God is abrogated. But if the law of God be abrogated, he has no rule of duty; consequently, he can neither be holy nor sinful. 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. Until he repents, he cannot be forgiven. In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground.995

Objection: Can A Man Be Born Again, And Then Be Unborn? I Answer:

If there were anything impossible in this, then perseverance would be no virtue. None will maintain, that there is anything naturally impossible in this, except it be those who hold to physical regeneration. If regeneration consists in a change in the ruling preference of the mind, or in the ultimate intention, as we shall see it does, it is plain, that an individual can be born again, and afterwards cease to be virtuous. That a Christian is able to apostatize, is evident, from the many warnings addressed to Christians in the Bible. A Christian may certainly fall into sin and unbelief, and afterwards be renewed, both to repentance and faith.996

The confusion of Finney in his choice of terms is evident in the following statement about being “re–converted”. He did believe in a “temporary faith,” and that a true believer could lose his salvation, but here his meaning may refer to some type of subjective and unscriptural “rededication”.

A revival will decline and cease, unless Christians are frequently re-converted. By this I mean, that Christians, in order to keep in the spirit of revival, commonly need to be frequently convicted, and humbled and broken down before God, and “re-converted.” This is something which many do not understand, when we talk about a Christian being re-converted. But the fact is, that in a revival, the Christian’s heart is liable to get crusted over, and lose its exquisite relish for Divine things; his unction and prevalence in prayer abate, and then he must be converted over again. It is impossible to keep him in such a state as not to do injury to the work, unless he passes through such a process every few days.997

He believed and taught that a person could be brought to temporary faith, and then because that person was not brought to perfection could apostatize or “backslide” and be

995 Finney follows this statement with another, seeking to make a distinction between the sinning Christian and the unregenerate, but further counters his adroit approach with the next objection concerning apostasy. (Italics added). 996 Finney, Systematic Theology, pp. 143–145. (Italics added). 997 Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion, p. 281. (Italics added). 356

lost. This is how he explained the “backsliding” or apostasy of many of his converts. B. B. Warfield writes:

…It is very true that Finney could not conceal the instability of his converts from himself. Later he found a reason for it. It was because he had brought them only into traditional Christianity, and not into perfectionism. “While I inculcated the common views,” he says, meaning the common views as to an as yet imperfect sanctification, “I was often instrumental in bringing Christians under great conviction, and into a state of temporary repentance and faith—it is thus that he speaks of his entire evangelistic work up to 1836!—“but,” he continues, “falling short of urging them up to a point where they would become so acquainted with Christ as to abide in him, they would of course soon relapse again into their former state”...There lies in this passage an affecting acknowledgment of the failure of his early evangelistic labors to produce permanent results. One of the odd things connected with it, however, is that Finney fancies that, had he preached perfectionism, the effect might have been different—meaning that the perfectionism of his converts would have protected them from sinning...998

In this context, Finney himself wrote many years later that if he could re–live his early life as an evangelist, he would seek to preach his later “perfectionist” doctrine so that his “converts” would live converted and holy lives.999

 

[Iconoclast]

B. B. Warfield comments on this perfectionist statement and its implications:

…Finney tells us that “entire sanctification does not imply the same degree of faith” in everybody. It does not, for example, imply the same degree of faith in us,

sinners, “that might have been exercised but for our ignorance and past sin.” It requires a lower degree of faith to make a sinner perfectly holy than is required to make a saint perfectly holy: and the worse sinners we are the lower is the degree of faith that is required to make us perfectly holy. It does not resolve this paradox to observe that Finney is obviously confusing here the degree of faith exercised, and the amount of knowledge which is possessed of the object on which faith rests. What he really means to say, however, is that the less knowledge we have of God and divine things, the less faith is required of us that we may be perfect.

The proposition on which he relies for support runs: “We cannot believe any thing about God of which we have no evidence or knowledge,” and therefore, “entire sanctification implies…nothing more than the heart’s faith or confidence in all the truth that is perceived by the intellect.” The deflecting influence here is derived from his doctrine that as obligation is limited by ability, he who does all he can (being what he is) is as perfect as God Himself. On this ground he declares that: “Perfection in a heathen would imply much less faith than in a Christian. Perfection in an adult would imply much more and greater faith than in an infant. Our attention is attracted for the moment by the suggestion that perfection is conceivable in a heathen.
This is not a slip. Finney fully means it. “The heathen,” he explains, “are not under obligation to believe in Christ, and thousands of other things of which they have no knowledge.” Not being under obligation to believe in Christ, of course they can be perfect without believing in Him. If they have “heart’s faith or confidence in all the truth that is perceived by their intellect,” they will not be kept from being perfect by lack of faith in Christ of whom they have no knowledge. Perfection clearly is not conceived as the product of Christ in the heart and life of him who believes in Him. It is not Christ but faith that makes us perfect, and it apparently does not much matter what the object is on which the faith rests. The faith of a fetish-worshipper (provided it embraces all he knows) is as efficacious to produce perfection in him as the faith of a John or a Paul.994

993 Finney, Systematic Theology, p. 170. (Italics added). 994 Ibid., pp. 86–87. 355