Finney

Why do calvinists cringe at that name? I've brought up Finney in conversations and it totaly negated my testamony to certain peoples. There is alot of John Piper loyalists up here and just wondering if maybe he said something to discredit Finney. Any thoughts?

Finney is a Calvinist's worst nightmare-- his entire theological systematic viewpoint was completely contrary and in utter defiance of the Calvinistic, 5-point theology of the day. He didn't really even believe in Original Sin from what I gather, but nor did Paris Reidhead-- but his theological writings are pretty good nonetheless. Take them with a grain of salt and a Bible close by.

Edit: On second look I didn't even explain in summary even what the differentiations stemmed from. To sum up as best as I can (and anyone else can further elaborate,) Finney believed in the ultimate freedom and will of Man. Calvinists believe in the ultimate Sovereignty of God. The thing is, both believe that they contain both of those precepts, but in reality, Finney held to one extreme, and the other guys held to the other. Where and who went the middle ground combining the two is up for you to decide. It's a complicated mess of theological debates that have run on for centuries-- something that is unedifying and unScriptural in it's extremities, but when you combine the two are fully Scriptural. For both are in play throughout the Bible.

Jordan

I understand this but why such defiance and shut down. He was a great american revivalist don't you think we should hear what he has to say? Did not 80% of his converts stay devout in Christ? I own his systematic theology and think it is wonderful! Ooops should'nt of said that now nobody is going to take me seriously?!?!?! His lectures on Revival is really good also. Ravenhill and Kieth Green seemed to enjoy his writings as well. Why not consider his views when his walk surely showed he was in Christ?

The "defiance and shut down" that comes from most Calvinists when they hear the name Finney is due to these long-standing feuds of doctrinal differentiations as I said. Most (at least serious, 5-point) Calvinists wouldn't even say you could be saved if you don't hold to their strict theological viewpoint. However the same "defiance and shut down" could be paralleled to if you brought up John Calvin in a group of Nazarenes or what-have-you-- most don't have a pretty image of him as Calvinists don't have of Finney, in my experience at least.

Jordan

I know many calvinists and have asked them why they do not like Finney, and what most of them say is that he did not believe in the Atonement. If you read his systematic theology it can be misunderstood to mean that, and although I disagree with his view, from what I understand, I would certainly not say that it is heresy, and if it is, it certainly isn't a damnable heresy.

Also most calvinists definately don't say that unless you are a 5-pointer you're not saved. I have one really good friend who is obsessed with Piper and we disagree and that is fine with him.

I do find it interesting that reformed people respect Wesley but not Finney... my theory is that because Wesley had Whitefield to substantiate himself he is accepted whereas Finney had no Calvinist friends...

I know many calvinists and have asked them why they do not like Finney, and what most of them say is that he did not believe in the Atonement. If you read his systematic theology it can be misunderstood to mean that, and although I disagree with his view, from what I understand, I would certainly not say that it is heresy, and if it is, it certainly isn't a damnable heresy.

I second that, brother. The lesser issue involved here is free will and predestination, as you have pointed out with Wesley. The real problem with Finney is his doctrine of the atonement, which really isn't an atonement at all, but rather a safety mechanism for God to forgive man. I can understand on this point why the Calvinists recline when they hear the name Finney. John Wesley on the other hand, though an Arminian, still held the traditional atonement view, and as far as I am concerned, classical Arminianism and classical Calvinism can go together quite nicely. :-)

I think one of the problems with Finney as well was that he was very much a "moralist" He would use his own convictions as the standard by which others should live. He was quite extreme with things such as how much sugar to use without it being sin, and if one should drink tea.

The reason many Reformed folks do not care for Finney and his theology is that it was contrary to what Historical Christian teaching had taught.

Also the idea that one could be saved one minute, and then the next be lost was not highly regarded either.

I fear that the impact this man has had upon our times is that too many have gotten into a moral gospel which leads to much defeat, and despair rather than understanding the glorious grace of God in saving sinners. Because Finney's atonement view was of the moral government view, he did not see man as utterly and thouroughly tainted and dead in sin, thus you come up with a jesus that cannot really save to the uttermost without man's moral compliance. Thus the work of the cross is not for the propitiation of God's wrath, but rather a picture of how much God hates sin.

I don't know much about Finney, I used to want to read alot of his books, but I will stick with the Puritan authors for now.

Yeah I see what you are saying about his views becoming somewhat dependent on the morality of man rather than the grace of God, as is the tendency with any arminian, but from what I have read of him he exalts the grace of God in the morality of man and gives God all of the glory for the morality. Again with his views on Atonement he does hold to the moral government view, but it is weird because a lot of what he says is pretty ambiguous and i am still trying to figure it out.

But as roaringlamb said you are always safe sticking with Puritans :-)

I'm going to do more research into the Puritans before I state what I "firmly believe" about them. I think that like the Founding Fathers-- there are many, many myths pertaining to them and their "Christian prudence" or what-have-you. But for now I do not know enough of them.

Jordan

Yeah right now I am reading a book called The Genius of Puritanism and it describes what the preaching was like, the church goers were like as well as outlining many of the greatest men of the time period.
ALthough I do not agree with the Puritans reformed theology, it is so easy to see that they have such a grasp of God that is just breathed into their writings. I think it was Ravenhill who said (maybe quoting someone) "The Puritan preachers lived in eternity 6 days a week and on the 7th they stepped down and told the congregation what God had taught them."

I don't know much about Finney, I used to want to read alot of his books, but I will stick with the Puritan authors for now.

Read them!! This is what I get from most who like to comment on Finney. They've only heard things about him they actually have'nt read it for themselves. He really is an amazing author and will make you think about what you believe and may change how you walk the christian life. He puts up a fairly good argument on any topic thanks to his career choice before becoming a minister. His call to holiness is why people paint such a picture of this man. He lived what he wrote and spoke and have met very few today I could say the same about. But there are a few.

In the love of Christ,

Craig

Finney was the inventor of the "altar call", where the preacher calls sinners to come to the front and give their lives to Jesus. Calvinists believe that salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit upon the sinners' mind and spirit. Hyper-calvinists are fairly unevangelistic since they believe that man cannot have any effect in a person's salvation. Calvinists also believe that Finney was a Pelagianist. In other words, man could become perfect before God in his own abilities. To read what one prominent Calvinist has to say about Finney, go here:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm

I love Finney, but I balance Finney with other writers and preachers.

I have been reading through Chuck's compiled lectures from the Oberlin Evangelist, 'The Promise of The Spirit.' at a rate of about 3 lectures a month for over half a year. This has been a source of great struggle and conviction, much in the same way that something like Why Revival Tarries or John Owen's The Mortification of Sin are.

I once said that Finney sets the bar higher, and the person I was speaking with correctly pointed out that the bar was always set that high -Jesus is the standard. What I think Finney is good for is showing us how low we see the standard of God as being, when we read Finney's writings we sometimes come away ashamed, or feel that he is too radical... well the Gospel demands radical obedience!

Finney has some doctrines that I disagree with, such as his strong teachings on 'christian perfection.' I want to be perfect, and I daily cry out to God for more mercy and more grace, according to Paul Washer this is one of the signs that I'm saved -according to Finney (or even John Owen) I'm a heathen who hasn't actually accepted Jesus as my savior.

Finney is great for challenging a person to live a more holy life. One of the things I like about reading Finney are those moments where the bar seems to get higher... and you've got to sit and repent that you hadn't seen that certain thing as sin before. Of course all of the theology and ethic is in the bible, but Finney is great for laying down the Praxis! Of course, the praxis is different for every person, but I'm amazed at Charles Finney's desire to live a holy life.

If there's anything to take away from Finney is the desire to be holy, to serve others and to share the Good News of Jesus Christ.

TrueWitness wrote:
To read what one prominent Calvinist has to say about Finney, go here:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm

I find it kind of strange that a 'prominent Calvinist' runs a site called 'spurgeon.org' considering Charles Spurgeon was a Baptist and spent almost his entire career preaching against calvinists.

TrueWitness said
"Finney was the inventor of the "altar call", where the preacher calls sinners to come to the front and give their lives to Jesus."

Was it so? Correct me if I am wrong. It is only on the revivals that he held that people were slain by the conviction of the Holy Spirit and fell on the ground before he even finishes his preaching.

Hear it from his own account. This is taken from the Article “Memories of Charles Finney”

"I had not spoken to them in this strain of direct application, I should think, more than a quarter of an hour, when all at once an awful solemnity seemed to settle down upon them; the congregation began to fall from their seats in every direction, and cried for mercy. If I had had a sword in each hand, I could not have cut them off their seats as fast as they fell. Indeed nearly the whole congregation were either on their knees or prostrate, I should think, in less than two minutes from this first shock that fell upon them. Every one prayed for himself, who was able to speak at all."

This kind of things characterized most of his meetings. I don't think he "alter called" or invented it. To the contrary Alter calls are invented when this kind of power that characterized Finney’s meetings departed from the church.

"If there's anything to take away from Finney is the desire to be holy, to serve others and to share the Good News of Jesus Christ"

Well said "iansmith"!

Your sis. Mek.

I find it kind of strange that a 'prominent Calvinist' runs a site called 'spurgeon.org' considering Charles Spurgeon was a Baptist and spent almost his entire career preaching against calvinists.

roaringlamb wrote:
I hope this does not "ruin" Spurgeon for you, or anyone else, but Spurgeon was against Hyper-Calvinism(I am as well), but was all for Calvinism. Here is his defense of it
[url=http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm]Defense Of Calvinism-Spurgeon[/url]

Well sometimes I'd really like to know the context that these sermons are preached in, I've read a lot by Spurgeon where he takes potshots at calvanists, not to mention he was a pillar of the Baptist community. My belief in this is that he was probably trying to mend some bridges, which is good.

But if he gave 99 sermons where he espoused a belief contrary to the majority of calvanist doctrinal teachings and 1 sermon in support of calvanism, I wouldn't call him a calvanist.

Here is a sermon preached on "Particular Redemption" or Limited Atonement.
[url=http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0181.htm]Particular Redemption[/url]

Another on man's inability, or total depravity
[url=http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/Human%20Inability.htm]Human Inability[/url]

Predestination and effectual calling, or irresistable grace
[url=http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0241.htm]Predestination And Calling[/url]

Unconditional Election
[url=http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0131.htm]
Salvation Is Of The LORD[/url]

This link will take you to Spurgeon's thoughts on all five points of Calvinism
[url=http://www.spurgeongems.org/grace.htm]
Spurgeon Gems[/url]

Just so you know it was more than just one sermon. I think many people like to quote Spurgeon, and herald him as the "Prince of Preachers" without understanding the doctrines he held.

Every blessing to you today :-)

Ian,

Spurgeon was a Calvinist.

Here is a list of sermons he preached on Romans:
http://www.spurgeon.org/index/r_ro.htm

Here is a sermon on Election
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0041.htm

Here is a sermon entitled "Glorious Predestination"
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1043.htm

roaringlamb, you were thinking the same thing I was! :-)

I wasn't doubting his theological stance... there are many non-calvinists who feel that there is some weight to what Calvin said, because he did include a lot of scriptural evidence.

What I'm saying is that Spurgeon, in his missionary work, his zeal for Evangelizing the poor masses was distinctly at odds with the Calvinists of his day, today we call them hyper-calvinists, but I think this is partly revisionist history, he agreed with the principles of Calvin, but in practice he was an Arminian!

here is an excellent sermon on spurgeons life, its delivered by John Piper, Spurgeon was a Calvinist...but not calvanist only.... he had many brothers whit different doctrines as pastors and leaders in his church.... anyway it is an awesome record of an incredible man of God, whatever side you join whit...listen to what God can do through a man...

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=14815&commentView=itemComments

I wasn't doubting his theological stance... there are many non-calvinists who feel that there is some weight to what Calvin said, because he did include a lot of scriptural evidence.

What I'm saying is that Spurgeon, in his missionary work, his zeal for Evangelizing the poor masses was distinctly at odds with the Calvinists of his day, today we call them hyper-calvinists, but I think this is partly revisionist history, he agreed with the principles of Calvin, but in practice he was an Arminian!

True historic Calvinism is just as evangelistic as any Arminian. Hyper-Calvinism is the black stain that so many people think of and stereotype Calvinists as.

Spurgeon and the Apostle Paul are two men I greatly admire. They worked as if it all depended upon them and they prayed as if it all depended upon God.

What I hope to show everyone on here is that a man can be a Calvinist in theology and share the good news of the gospel with the fire and zeal of an Arminian.

Jay, I don't doubt you can, I'm just saying that he's not so easily defined!

I was listening to George Verwer last night (who is an incredible speaker and has an incredible testimony and has done incredible things for the Lord). He talked about 'mixed drinks.'

He talked about 'mixed drinks' or 'cocktails' in reference to modern church teaching. He said that when we interact with other Christians of other backgrounds, as long as we can accept the central doctrinal points that we can all agree on, we don't have to get hung up on the ones that cause so many to fight and bicker.

I think that Spurgeon was a 'mixed drink.' You could argue he was a calvinist with an arminian streak, I could argue he was an arminian with a calvinist streak -you know what, it's not really important, his whole message was about the Good News of Jesus for all peoples!

Spurgeon and the Apostle Paul are two men I greatly admire. They worked as if it all depended upon them and they prayed as if it all depended upon God.

Brother that is a wonderful quote.

I think that if you look back through Church History, you will find that many of the men we look up to on this site i.e. David Brainerd, C.T. Studd, William Carey, and many of the most amazing missionaries were Presbyterian, which back then was Calvinistic. Even Evan Roberts was part of the Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Church, George Whitefield was a Calvinist.

Why did such zeal(real zeal not emotion)burn in them? Could it be that they saw God as truly sovereign and believed that people needed the Gospel as it was the power of God unto salvation?

That is the only "calvinism" I would be a part in, as it line up with the Scriptures.

Either way brethren there is a world that perishes, and they cannot believe on whom they have not heard, so may we be like Samson's foxes, and spread The Gospel which says that all men are doomed because of sin, and that Christ is the Saviour mighty enough to save them.

Amen to that Ian,

When it comes down to it I am convinced that neither camp are entirely correct. There is a balance that we must take by faith. God alone can sovereignly draw mankind to Himself, yet He holds us accountable for our choice regarding His Son. This is a paradox that are puny little brains can't quite comprehend, but they are both true.

I find the arguing over these two sides of the same coin to be concurently amusing and grievous.

Giving thanks to Him in Whom we have fellowship,

Doug

I've read the quotes and the great swelling words of vanity that oft came from Spurgeon's mouth in the vein of the foolish Calvin and the murderer knox, with the rebelliousnes of Wesley and the deceit of whitfield.

John 5:35-43 (1525 faithofgod.net version)
5 He was a burning, and a shining light, and ye would for a season have rejoiced in his light.
36 But I have greater witness, than the witness of Ihon. For the works which my father hath given me to finish: the same works which I do, bear witness of me, that my father sent me.
37 And my father himself, which hath sent me, beareth witness of me. Ye have not heard his voice at any time, Nor yet have seen his shape.
38 And his words have ye not abiding in you: For ye believe not him whom he hath sent.
39 Search the scriptures, for in them, ye think ye have eternal life: And they are they which testify of me.
40 And yet will ye not come to me that ye might have life.
41 I receive not praise of men:
42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43 I am come in my father’s name, and ye receive me not. If another shall come in his own name, him will ye receive.

And again Acts 7:51-53 51 ¶ Ye stiffnecked and of uncircumcised hearts and ears: ye have allways resisted the holy ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them, which shewed before of the coming of that Just, whom ye have betrayed and murdered.
53 And ye also have received a law by the ordinance of angels, and have not kept it.

Then looked where it went from there

Psalm73 wrote:
I've read the quotes and the great swelling words of vanity that oft came from Spurgeon's mouth in the vein of the foolish Calvin and the murderer knox, with the rebelliousnes of Wesley and the deceit of whitfield.

brother....what are you saying?

roaringlamb wrote:
David Brainerd, C.T. Studd, William Carey, and many of the most amazing missionaries were Presbyterian, which back then was Calvinistic.

I'm gonna have to steal one back, William Carey was most definitely a Baptist, he founded the 'Baptist Missionary Society.'

The other two are sketchy as well.

C.T. Studd accepted Christ under Moody (a non-denominationalist) and served under Hudson Taylor (a Methodist) and later worked for WEF (WEC) which is pretty ecumenical.

David Brainerd's missionary sponsorship came from the Anglicans, although Jonathan Edwards his father-in-law was most definitely a Calvinist.

I guess this goes farther to serve my point that being used by God often requires being a 'mixed drink.' As long as we try to stick to one set of denominational orthodoxy we may be closing doors that God wants to be opened.

Psalm73 wrote:
I've read the quotes and the great swelling words of vanity that oft came from Spurgeon's mouth in the vein of the foolish Calvin and the murderer knox, with the rebelliousnes of Wesley and the deceit of whitfield.

I really don't know what you're getting at. Spurgeon, Calvin, Wesley and Witfield, although often derided by certain people in our modern day were greately used of God in their generations. These men were men of God and poweful witnesses to the Good News of Jesus Christ.

Unless you're going to give me some specifics as to why you dislike these men and their ministries I'm going to have to say that there is no weight to your comment. I'm going to judge these men by their fruits, which are millions of souls that are directly attributable to their ministries in the name of Jesus.

Amen brother roaringlamb!

Spurgeon, Calvin, Wesley and Witfield, although often derided by certain people in our modern day were greatly used of God in their generations. These men were men of God and poweful witnesses to the Good News of Jesus Christ.

The same can be said of Finney, whom this thread [i]was[/i] about. I've been reading through the variety of comments regarding this brother's theology. I doubt if I would agree with much of the doctrinal positions he took. Never the less, there is no doubt he was used of God mightily. This is due to one major truth. He had a mighty prayer covering wherever he went. The same goes for anyone who has or ever will be in the public's eye 'mightily used of God'.

Ultimately then, it seems that doctrine is of [i]less[/i] importance than our insistent faith.

In His love,

Doug

Edit. This post originated from an angry and offended spirit. I have deleted its contents as I feel convicted to do so. To anyone who read this prior to this edit and was offended, I ask your forgiveness.

Humbly in Christ,

Doug

Faith in Who or What?

[i]Is this question necessary?[/i]

If my doctrine about who God is is wrong then my faith is pointless.

If my doctrine about Jesus is wrong then my faith is useless.

If my doctrine about the atonement is wrong then my faith is useless.

If my doctrine about The Gospel is wrong then my faith is useless.

Mahoney,

I apologize for the severity of my reaction to your post, but it almost sounds like you are putting your faith in your correct doctrine and not in Him.

The context of this thread has to do specifically with the debate over strict hyper calvinism, moderate calvinism, and something that may mix in a lttle arminian doctrine. Getting these doctrines perfectly correct are of little value at all [i]as compared to[/i] the driving, insistent faith of the prayer warriors that have been behind [i]every revival that has ever or will ever occur[/i]. I felt the context made it quite plain that I was not refering to the key elements of salvation such as Christ's shed blood or the virgin birth. This is why I reacted that way. This is why I told you to look at the [i]context[/i].

I was truly offended by your objection. I apologize for my shortcomings in being as gracious as I would like. It is not my habit to react so strongly.

In Christ,

Doug

Edit: some language toned down and re-expressed in a (hopefully) godlier manner.

Manoney wrote:

Charles Finney was wrong on many important issues. If I may be so bold and say, he preached another Gospel.

Now that is a bold statement! I'm almost sorry I started this thread. Finney was a man used of God without a doubt in my mind. He set the bar high in following Christ but so did Christ. So high that we have to completely depend on Him. These are the responses I get by just mentioning FINNEY. My question in my original post has been answered and acted out through out this post. Now can we move on in Christ? His love conquers all!!

Brother Craig

Amen!

ouote :Finney was the inventor of the "altar call", where the preacher calls sinners to come to the front and give their lives to Jesus. Calvinists believe that salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit upon the sinners' mind and spirit.
Question: are you saying that finny thought that he could call, people to be saved? More fouse on him doing the work then the Holy Spirit?
Would when the peacher says prayer this prayer after me, be part of a alter call?

Doug,
maybe I miss something in what you where talking about by why where you mad? Sorry I didn't get it?

If my doctrine about who God is is wrong then my faith is pointless.
I was wondering why this is wrong? If is seen as a differnt God, then we would have a differnt faith. Help me here?

If my doctrine about Jesus is wrong then my faith is useless.
How can we have true in God, if we add or take from who Jesus is. would we really be saved?
God makes it clear on the Good News there is no question, no matter what you are. The Good News is the same, and if Any man great or not. If he adds or takes, then how can it be Good?

If my doctrine about the atonement is wrong then my faith is useless.
I am sure about this one?
If my doctrine about The Gospel is wrong then my faith is useless.
This I am sure is important. the way someone is saved, should be the same? I am not sure what you are trying to say?

I don't know much about finny, but him or any other man. Adds or takes then it can't be right. again I don't his stroy.

Let me attempt to clarify the statemet in question one more time. I am not stating that major doctrinal issues are unimportant. But let me ask you this. Does our salvation depend on having a full grasp on every doctrinal position we hold so dear?

The only thing we need to understand for salvation to occur is that we recogize that we are sinners, seperated from God by that sin and that Jesus Christ paid the penalty for that sin on the cross. We must repent of our sin and place our trust in the free gift of grace made possible through the cross.

As we grow in the Lord, our maturity as believers is dependent in many ways on our grasp of doctrinal issues, this is absolutely true. But even here there are doctrines that we can't all agree on. It is these doctrines that I was specifically refering to in my initial post. The previous post had to do with several men who had been used of God in great revivals. It was pointed out that in spite of some doctrinal differences they all were used of God. Why? Because each had faith to move mountains of disbelief and men commited to fervent prayer to that end.

Prayer filled faith then is seen to be of greater importance in revival than these lesser doctrinal issues. I also pointed out that even Finney saw great revival in his preaching, and he had some even bigger doctrinal holes in his theology.

So where does this leave us? Which is more important for us to see revival in our time? That we have all our doctrines neatly tied up in our understanding, or that we fall on our face and intercede for the millions of lost souls perishing every day around us?

I will say it again, and hold fast to this conviction. The insistent prayer of faith is of greater importance to the kingdom of God than doctrine.

I will say this again as well. This does not mean that we diminish the importance of doctrine, especially the ones raised by or brother Mahoney.

What I found perplexing is that I haven't stated anything new here that, at least I thought, couldn't have been seen and understood by reading my first post.

I hope this clears things up.

In His Love,

Doug

Now I do agree that major doctrine is important but there are minor doctrines we can disagree on to an extent and still call each other brothers, cant we?

As long as you don't mention Finney!!

In the Love of Christ,

Craig

thank you I understand it much better. Or least were you are coming from.
charlene