Who is the real Charles Finney?

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?

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

.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...

 

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

 

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

 

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