Who is the real Charles Finney?

[Iconoclast]

S. B. Canfield comments on Finney’s irrational teaching, stemming from his Pelagian ideas that faith is mere human trust, and that one is entirely sanctified at the moment of faith, in the following:

…The fact seems to be that Finney’s fundamentally Pelagian mode of thinking, already run to seed in his doctrine of ‘the simplicity of moral action’…has betrayed him here into a conception of man which makes him sufficient for himself, and leaves no need for either Christ or the Holy Spirit to make him perfect…

Let it be distinctly noted, then…that according to the principle of ‘Oberlin perfectionism,’ entire sanctification is conditioned on previous perfection. To become sinlessly perfect, you must go to the Saviour already perfect. It cannot even be said that, though we make ourselves perfect, we must depend upon Christ to keep us perfect. He does not, according to ‘Oberlin perfectionism,’ keep us perfect—we may fall. And if we continue perfect that is because we preserve our faith: permanent entire sanctification is conditioned on permanent faith, just as simple entire sanctification is conditioned on simple faith.

We must keep ourselves perfect as a condition of Christ’s keeping us perfect. Permanent, entire sanctification is conditioned (according to this view) on itself! You shall be perfect as long as you shall continue to be perfect.992

990 B. B. Warfield, Op. cit., pp. 138–139. 991 Ibid., p. 85. 992 S. B. Canfield, “An Exposition of the Peculiarities, Difficulties and Tendencies of Oberlin Perfection,” pp. 45–48. Quoted by B. B. Warfield, Op. cit., pp. 84–86. 354

 

[Humble Disciple]

I used to be a member of the Salvation Army, and the work of Charles Finney was very influential on the Booths, the founders of the Salvation Army.

I didn't know the name of Charles Finney, but I've been familiar with his teachings for a long time, and I know they aren't what modern-day Calvinists say they are.

 

[Humble Disciple]

It's very funny and kind of sad that Charles Finney's detractors accuse him of being "man-centered" for, with the help of the Holy Spirit, leading hundreds of thousands of people to lifelong, obedient faith in the Lord. What makes that man-centered rather than Bible-centered and Christ-centered?

 

[Humble Disciple]

During a six month time period in Rochester, New York, one hundred thousand people were converted to Christ, the bars closed, and the crime right dropped significantly:

How can one, except for the most hardened and partisan Calvinist, not see this as the work of the Holy Spirit? Charles Spurgeon, the prince of preachers himself, the Calvinist of Calvinists, was so impressed by the work of Charles Finney that he prayed for the same level of revival to arrive in England.

 

[Humble Disciple]

Modern-day Calvinists lie when they label Finney a Pelagian:

I honestly don't know why John MacArthur are so determined to mislead the public about Finney's life and teachings, but it breaks the commandment to not bear false witness.

 

[1689Dave]

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:


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





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:



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?

Winning souls for Christ? Or packing churches with Tares for the Devil?

 

[Yeshua1]

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:


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





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:



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?

He brought into evangelism the destructive full free will Gospel, and he did not see humans as being affected by the fall of Adam, and basically still retained means to accept or reject Jesus themselves, unaided by God!

 

[Van]

Once again we have a thread about people and not the teachings of scripture. We have "He is bad" and "He is good" videos.

Here is a snippet from page 1:

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​

What does item 4 mean? If we are indwelt, then we are eternally righteous? Or we sustain our righteousness through our faithfulness in following the leading of our indwelt Holy Spirit? Clearly our righteousness cannot be sustained through self originated attitudes or actions. But is it "inwrought" (brought about) by our faithfulness to the leading of our indwelt Holy Spirit. It seems C. Finney thinks we could not follow the HS and therefore become unrighteous. Do I have this right? Is our righteousness secured by our continuing faith (or not) in Him?

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

So moved form 4 point Calvinist now to full free willer?

 

[Yeshua1]

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

Just the strawmen of his own making!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Hope this helps!
A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: How Charles Finney's Theology Ravaged the Evangelical Movement

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

His approach was the emotional response one, forerunner to what would be seen in various charismatic pulpits!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Even though his sotierology was really messed up?

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Wesley still held to the fall making us unable to receive Jesus apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, while Finney assumed still able to do just that ourselves!

 

[Yeshua1]

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

he held to us still being basically morally good!

 

[Yeshua1]

I used to be a member of the Salvation Army, and the work of Charles Finney was very influential on the Booths, the founders of the Salvation Army.

I didn't know the name of Charles Finney, but I've been familiar with his teachings for a long time, and I know they aren't what modern-day Calvinists say they are.

They are extreme free will, to the point of being modern Pel!

 

[Iconoclast]

Hope this helps!
A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: How Charles Finney's Theology Ravaged the Evangelical Movement

Oh you're just a hater.

 

[Iconoclast]

Once again we have a thread about people and not the teachings of scripture. We have "He is bad" and "He is good" videos.

Here is a snippet from page 1:

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​

What does item 4 mean? If we are indwelt, then we are eternally righteous? Or we sustain our righteousness through our faithfulness in following the leading of our indwelt Holy Spirit? Clearly our righteousness cannot be sustained through self originated attitudes or actions. But is it "inwrought" (brought about) by our faithfulness to the leading of our indwelt Holy Spirit. It seems C. Finney thinks we could not follow the HS and therefore become unrighteous. Do I have this right? Is our righteousness secured by our continuing faith (or not) in Him?

Sorry Van no one is able to criticize the great Charles Finney who was the greatest evangelist of All time even though we had gospel that was a mix of work s. grace

 

[kyredneck]

I used to be a member of the Salvation Army

...my favorite charity to donate to.

 

[Humble Disciple]

It's very funny and kind of sad how modern-day Calvinists often accuse Charles Finney of Pelagianism, without actually quoting what he actually taught. Charles Spurgeon obviously didn't see Finney as Pelagian.

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.