I just received some free books authored by Charles Finney, I have heard and read some things that could cause me to worry about his teaching.
Has anyone have any opinions concerning Finney?
thanks
Has anyone have any opinions concerning Finney?
Brother there are plenty of them. Here are some links to past conversations on this subject. Perhaps you should post in one of them.
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=15478&forum=35]Finney
A well discussed topic in the forums of Sermonindex.
Blessings,
Jeremy Hulsey
People usually either love or hate Finney. I suggest reading for yourself and seeing what you think.
Nile
I have just started another thread entitled [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=19599&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Charles G Finney and Moral Government
I think Finney was an excellent revivalists and theologian.
I highly recommend reading:
Memoirs of Charles Finney, an autobiography
Lectures on Revival by Charles Finney
Lectures on Systematic Theology by Charles Finney
These books are fantastic. Finney has lot's of critics. Every good preacher has critics. I recommend reading his stuff for yourself.
personally I wouldn't have anything to do with Finney, but I haven't actually read anything he has written so I can't really say much more than that!! :)
personally I wouldn't have anything to do with Finney
I'd have to agree even after reading his stuff :-)
I love reading Finney, especially his books on raising children.I just take the good and dump the bad as with anything.I have found too much that I disagree with yet but I haven't read a whole lot. What he has to say so far I like.
We probably have more disagreements with our own pastors. I just had to walk out of a women's bible conference Saturday because they were singing Shania Twain: "Feel Like A Woman" and wearing men's shirts and short skirts, this is Assemblies of God.
At times like these I wish Charles Finney were here!
http://www.gospeltruth.net/children/let_to_parents_cgf_toc.htm
Reformer,
Your thread actually got me thinking about Finney, so I decided to read one of his sermons in the text section. It is called "Any One Sin Persisted in, is Fatal to the Soul." I found it convicting not to mention a polar opposite to the 'Fluff' that is preached from today's pulpits.
A couple of years ago I read another sermon by Finney called "Breaking up the Fallow Ground". It made me weep over my sinful condition.
He seems to have alot of detractors and alot of people question his theology. But any preacher that makes you seek biblical repentance is worth his salt in my opinion.
You should check out his sermons for yourself.
Murray
I have read part of Finneys' autobiography. I thought it has been incredible; an awesome account of the manifest presence of God coming into people and penetrating hearts that were so opposed and hardened towards the truth. If anyone speaks against Finney, what revivals happened because they were obedient to God? and may he who is without sin throw the first stone!
Brother I mean this in all seriousness, when Mormons experience the "burning of the bosom" they speak of when they pray, is this of God? They believe it is, and thus they believe that they are of the truth.
As I wrote earlier, do some research into the connections between Joseph Smith and Charles Finney and their similar conversion experiences. You will be surprised.
Roaringlamb,
I did some research like you suggested and the articles I found indicated that Smith likely plagarized Finney's account of his conversion.
To compare Joseph Smith to Charles Finney is like comparing Kenneth Copeland to Paul Washer.
Joseph Smith wrote his own bible(The Book of Mormon) and formed a cult whereas Charles Finney's preaching and writing sparked great revivals in the 1830's.
I don't think it is responsible to compare the two.
Murray
My point is simply to get people to stop, and read, see who this man is, and realize the devastating effect he and his methods have had upon American Churches.
I am glad you looked, and yes that is what I have found too. now compare Finney with the secular philosopher Kant. Here is an excerpt from a paper on Kant-
[i]Kant reinterprets the Christian doctrine of the atonement through the death of Jesus Christ. He rejects the view of “vicarious atonement” — that Christ takes away the guilt of previous evil conduct by standing as a substitute for all of us — in favor of an “exemplary” one. Christ thus provides a model in which we recognize steadfast adherence in both word and action to the principle of moral rightness which we already possess in the categorical imperative as the principle for the exercise of our practical reason. Such adherence to the principle of moral rightness is fundamental to what Kant considers to be the “religion of reason.”
Kant's account of moral conversion also touches upon another important theme in Christian theology: the nature and function of the activity of God in the process of moral regeneration. This process, under the heading of “justification,” was a central issue during the sixteenth century Reformation that lead to division of Christian churches in Europe. Christian theology conceptualized this activity of God in justification as part of its complex notion of “grace.” Against this background, Kant's account of human responsibility for turning away from radical evil has frequently been understood as leaving little or no room for the functioning of God's grace within this process. This would align Kant with a much earlier Christian heresy, Pelagianism, (combated by Augustine in the fifth century) that emphasizes the power of human beings to effect their own salvation
Finney too rejected the substitutionary atonement, and also threw out God's work in the conversion of men, leaving men morally able to save themselves.
To me, if a secular, ungodly philosopher is saying the same things as a supposed theologian and revivalist, I would be concerned. Thus I warn my brothers and sisters, that is all I can do.
Roaringlamb,
Truthfully I do not pretend to be an expert on Finney or what he believed in all aspects of his preaching.
All I know is that of the couple of sermons I have read by Finney, I found them very convicting and scriptural.
Some of the stuff you wrote in your last post I actually didn't understand. Not because you were unclear but I am just not learned enough in the deeper things.
If you feel there is something wrong with the man's ministry I appreciate you warning us. If there is something wrong with his preaching it has not been made clear to me at this point.
Murray
I am not being facetious, murdog, when I sum his theology up as such...
Christ's life was the perfect example of holiness, and his death was the perfect demonstration of how mad at sin God is. Christ's death paid the penalty only for "repented sins". Each and every sin, before and after conversion, must be consciously repented of, no matter how small, if one is to have not just assurance of salvation, but salvation at all. This "salvation" is given by the "grace" of God if individuals "repent" and never sin again. If any person lapses into sin, he is temporarily under the wrath of God. It is up to him to repent again because it is in his natural ability to do so. If God allows this person to live long enough to repent again, this is "mercy".
I don't believe I've been unfair in describing it this way, but correct me if this is not right.
Eli Brayley responded this way to such theology...
---
I agree that repentance is a change of mind, as the greek word metaneo shows. And I also agree it is a changed mind about how you will live which inevitably affects all your actions and way of life. However, if our definition of repentance basically amounts to "stop sinning" than what is the difference between this and the Law? The Law also tells us to stop sinning: "Thou shalt not..." What the Law shows us is that we do not keep it because of our wayward hearts. Therefore as Galatians says: "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." (Galatians 3:24)
The requirement of a person being justified is not contigent upon keeping the Law (ceasing from sin), but upon the grace of God accessed solely through faith in the blood of Jesus Christ. A sinner is under the curse of the Law until he finds freedom from the Law in Christ. If acquiring salvation is dependant upon keeping the Law no sinner can be saved. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (Galatians 3:13-14)
What exactly was the blessing of Abraham? It was the promise that through his seed (Christ) all the families of the earth will be blessed. This was a promise given by God to Abraham without condition and before the Law, and the Law which was given 430 years later could not disannul. "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." (Galatians 3:6-7)
Justification must be by faith alone or else it is no more of grace nor of promise. If salvation is dependent upon "repent (stop sinning) and believe" we have serious problems. Unless, of course, we understand repentance as metaneo, a change of mind... from Law to grace: a repentance "from dead works" (Hebrew 6:2) as it is meant to be understood.
Then we can say with Paul, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." (Romans 10:4)
The Jewish nation already had the Law telling them to "stop sinning". Our consciences also do the same. Paul, in Romans 7, describes himself wanting to do right but finding himself unable to do so. He was under the Law (Romans 7:1), and thus a slave to sin. He needed liberty from Law.
True faith is obedience, "the obedience of faith" (Romans 16:26). "Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." (John 6:28-29) Abraham is the father of faith in that he is the example for all those who will be justified and declared righteous before God. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. This was without the works of the Law. This was nearly 40 years before he offered Isaac upon the altar.
"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus..." (Romans 3:21-24)
"Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:27-28)
It's just too plain in Scripture. A sinner cannot be justified by works, nor can law be mixed with grace. A guilty man is justified by grace through his faith in the blood of Christ. This imputes to the man righteousness, apart from the Law. This is why in ages to come we shall be saying: "The LORD our righteousness" and why there will be no boasting.
---
An excellent article on Finney's methods of evangelism was written by J.I.Packer. It is here:
Here is an excerpt:
"This type of evangelism was invented by Charles G. Finney in the 1820’s. He introduced the “protracted meeting,” or, as we should call it, the intensive evangelistic campaign, and the “anxious seat,” a front pew left vacant where at the end of the meeting “the anxious may come and be addressed particularly…and sometimes be conversed with individually.” At the end of his sermon, he would say, “There is the anxious seat; come out, and avow determination to be on the Lord’s side.” (See Revivals of Religion, especially chapter xiv). These were Finney’s much opposed “new measures.”
Now, Finney was a clear-headed and self-confessed Pelagian in his doctrine of man; and this is the reason why his “new measures” were evolved. Finney denied that fallen man is totally unable to repent, believe or do anything spiritually good without grace, and affirmed instead that all men have plenary ability to turn to God at any time. Man is a rebel, but is perfectly free at any time to lay down his arms in surrender. Accordingly, the whole work of the Spirit of God in conversion is to present vividly to man’s mind reasons for making this surrender - that is to say, the Spirit’s work is confined to moral persuasion. Man is always free to reject this persuasion: “Sinners can go to hell in spite of God.” But the stronger the persuasion is, the more likely it is to succeed in the breaking down of man’s resistance. Every means, therefore, of increasing the force and vividness with which truth impinged on the mind - the most frenzied excitement, the most narrowing emotionalism, the most nerve-racking commotion in evangelistic meetings - was a right and proper means of evangelism. Finney gave expression to this principle in the first of his lectures on Revivals of Religion. “To expect to promote religion without excitements is unphilosophical and absurd…until there is sufficient religious principle in the world to put down irreligious excitements, it is in vain to try to promote religion, except by counteracting excitements…There must be excitement sufficient to wake up the dormant moral powers…” And, since every man, if he will only rouse up his “dormant moral powers,” can at any time yield to God and become a Christian, it is the evangelist’s work and duty always to preach for immediate decision, to tell men that it is their duty to come to Christ that instant, and to use all means – such as the rousing appeal and the “anxious seat” - for persuading them to do so. “I tried to shut them up,” he says of a typical mission sermon, “to present faith and repentance, as the thing which God required of them: present and instant acceptance of His will, present and instant acceptance of Christ” (Autobiography, p. 64). It is hardly too much to say that Finney regarded evangelistic preaching as a battle of wills between himself and his hearers, in which it was his responsibility to bring them to breaking point.
Now, if Finney’s doctrine of the natural state of sinful man is right, then his evangelistic methods must be judged right also, for, as he often insisted, the “new measures” were means well adapted to what he held to be the end in view. “It is in such practices that a Pelagian system naturally expresses itself if it seeks to become aggressively evangelistic” (B. B. Warfield). But if his view of man is wrong, then his methods, as we shall see, must be judged disastrous. And this is an issue of the first importance at the present time; for it is Finney’s methods, modified and adapted, which characterize most evangelism today. We do not suggest that all who use them are Pelagians. But we do raise the question, whether the use of such methods is consistent with any other doctrine than Finney’s, and we shall try to show that, if Finney’s doctrine is rejected, then such methods must be judged inappropriate and, indeed, detrimental to the real work of evangelism. It may be said that results justify their use; but the truth is that the majority of Finney’s “converts” backslid and fell away, and so, it seems, have the majority of those since Finney’s day whose “decision” has been secured by the use of such methods. Most modern evangelists seem to have given up expecting more than a small percentage of their “converts” to survive. It is not at all obvious that results justify such methods. We shall suggest later that they have a natural tendency to produce such a crop of false converts as has in fact resulted from their use.
The Puritan type of evangelism, on the other hand, was the consistent expression in practice of the Puritans’ conviction that the conversion of a sinner is a gracious sovereign work of Divine power. We shall spend a little time elaborating this.
The Puritans did not use “conversion” and “regeneration” as technical terms, and so there are slight variations in usage. Perhaps the majority treated the words as synonyms, each denoting the whole process whereby God brings the sinner to his first act of faith. Their technical term for the process was effectual calling; calling being the Scriptural word used to describe the process in Rom. 8:30, 2 Th. 2:14, 2 Tim. 1:9, etc., and the adjective effectual being added to distinguish it from the ineffectual, external calling mentioned in Mt. 20:16, 22:14. Westminster Confession, X. i., puts “calling,” into its theological perspective by an interpretative paraphrase of Rom. 8:30: “All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ.” The Westminster Shorter Catechism analyses the concept of “calling” in its answer to Q. 31: “Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.”
Concerning this effectual calling, three things must be said if we are to grasp the Puritan view:
(i) It is a work of Divine grace; it is not something a man can do for himself or for another. It is the first stage in the application of redemption to those for whom it was won; it is the time when, on the grounds of his eternal, federal, representative union with Christ, the elect sinner is brought by the Holy Ghost into a real, vital, personal union with his Covenant Head and Redeemer. It is thus a gift of free Divine grace.
(ii) It is a work of Divine power. It is effected by the Holy Ghost, who acts both mediately, by the Word, in the mind, giving understanding and conviction, and at the same time immediately, with the Word, in the hidden depths of the heart, implanting new life and power, effectively dethroning sin, and making the sinner both able and willing to respond to the gospel invitation. The Spirit’s work is thus both moral, by persuasion (which all Arminians and Pelagians would allow), and also physical, by power (which they would not)."
I found it convicting not to mention a polar opposite to the 'Fluff' that is preached from today's pulpits.
Would to God a Charles Finney would appear at the Revival Conference with the fires of eternity blazing in his eyes. I think America needs a thousand more Finneys and Father Nashes. Malign him and disagree with him as we may, I think we too soon forget the backing of God on this brother's ministry. God accepted him, and not only that, our Father used him massively. Our correct theology pertaining to the atonement or whatever really does nothing but make us look learned in these forums. But I would like my theological knowledge to shut down bars as well and empty out prisons and immobilize secular universities and change citywide demographics, all while fostering a legendary percentage of genuine conversions.
And I would like to hear such a man preach at the Revival Conference; and I really don't care from what theological camp he is. I want to listen to a man on whom the Spirit of the Lord rests, and I am willing to brush my theological pet peeves aside to learn from God.
(edited to avoid needless provocation)
Brother Paul
I want to listen to a man on whom the Spirit of the Lord rests, and I am willing to brush my theological pet peeves aside to learn from God.
Brother, it is good to hear this. Have been struggling with a great deal of expression in the observable ... latching onto manner of more than a few postings recently. Without going into endless clarifications, something came across the path this morning of a better articulation;
[i]... better left unsaid if the purpose for saying them is to establish a system of doctrine in order to bind men's minds to it.
It is certainly out of context, taken from another excellent article by G.W. North [url=http://mp3.biblebase.com/details.php?file=43]The Holy Spirit In Romans [i]bind men's minds to it
I am not quite sure when a certain ignorance came into play, somewhere between loosing out of the trappings of [i]another gospel
I am just more afraid for that which goes unnoticed, that there can be such an adhesion to these systems whatever their constitution, good, bad, indifferent that with all the thinking done up front for the reader ... well perhaps that is the problem itself.
Something of remarkable notice there as well brother. Praying Nash ... ah for more of this theology!
Well said brother.
Amen, we need more men like tease men! One thing i think why people dont like Finney is maybe because he is a "threat" to their doctrine. He may have some doctrinal issues...but is there anyone who can claim to have all their doctrines right? I havent found two that agrees completely on all things yet
What I so like about Finney is he was a "needed" man....
we need men today, look at our Christianity.... we need 1000 of Finneys...
we need more Wesleys more Withfields and all the rest of the men that stood up and walked with God that extra mile so few travel.... so many and even myself are that mile behind arguing about "good" things, and miss out on the best...
What I so like about Finney is he was a "needed" man....we need men today, look at our Christianity.... we need 1000 of finneys...
No what we need is men who hold to Scripture, we need men like John Knox, or Martin Luther. To be more specific and honest, we need Jesus Christ and His finished work proclaimed.
Just because a man is zealous does not make his lies ok. It is this pragmatic view that the end justifies the means that has so destroyed any semblance of Christianity in our day to that of the time of the Reformation.
Jehovah's Witnesses are very zealous, as are Muslims, but this zeal does not mean they are right.(I am not comparing Finney to these groups)
Any time anyone moves away from the sufficiency of Christ alone they are in danger of making huge errors. When Christ is not enough, and results must be the "proof" of ministry you end up with things like altar calls, and seeker services.
These spring from an unbiblical view of man as just wounded and needing a little help to find his way rather than man being dead and blind and needing life that only God can give.
Many of the practices that folks here rightly question in the church came from Finney and his conversion based ministry. Of course in his day, as in ours, men saw results and therefore thought it was of God. Again pragmatism was the determining factor and not Biblical truth, truth was left in the street because now men had bigger, better congregations, and could validate their ministry before their peers. Too bad Jeremiah didn't borrow some of these ideas, it would have saved him some trouble :-)
Just because a man uses Scripture, does not mean he is telling the truth.
I dont think Luther was 100% right in his doctrine either... he drank and was a persecutor as well. Did God use him? yes.... was he right in all areas of his doctrines ? no....
I think if we deny Finney was not real, we cant say that about any of the other "revivalist" either, in fact i think if we were to go through all of them i think we could say they were all wrong somewhere in their doctrine.
No what we need is men who hold to Scripture, we need men like John Knox, or Martin Luther. To be more specific and honest, we need Jesus Christ and His finished work proclaimed.Just because a man is zealous does not make his lies ok. It is this pragmatic view that the end justifies the means that has so destroyed any semblance of Christianity in our day to that of the time of the Reformation.
Jehovah's Witnesses are very zealous, as are Muslims, but this zeal does not mean they are right.(I am not comparing Finney to these groups)
Any time anyone moves away from the sufficiency of Christ alone they are in danger of making huge errors. When Christ is not enough, and results must be the "proof" of ministry you end up with things like altar calls, and seeker services.
These spring from an unbiblical view of man as just wounded and needing a little help to find his way rather than man being dead and blind and needing life that only God can give.
Many of the practices that folks here rightly question in the church came from Finney and his conversion based ministry. Of course in his day, as in ours, men saw results and therefore thought it was of God. Again pragmatism was the determining factor and not Biblical truth, truth was left in the street because now men had bigger, better congregations, and could validate their ministry before their peers. Too bad Jeremiah didn't borrow some of these ideas, it would have saved him some trouble
Just because a man uses Scripture, does not mean he is telling the truth.
Amen! This is exactly what I wanted to say but you already said it! :)
I just received some free books authored by Charles Finney, I have heard and read some things that could cause me to worry about his teaching.Has anyone have any opinions concerning Finney?
thanks
Hello reformer,
I tried to dig some old gems here from sermonindex, which I am sure it will be profitable for your soul.
First and foremost I would encourage you to start with his autobiography, which you can find it [url=http://www.gospeltruth.net/1868Memoirs/memoirsindex.htm]here[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=18291&forum=35]Here
I believe after reading few chapters you will be on your knees desperately seeking the reality of the presence of God in your life. You will see the difference between just dry words, and 'words and power' and reality with God.
Here are the past threads that might be profitable to you and all of us:
(I believe in these old threads can be sensed the spirit behind the ministry of sermonindex)
[b]Lectures on Revival:
"Because it pleased Christ to grant me experience with revivals of true Christianity, I thought that through the publication of these lectures I might in a small way serve the church at large." Charles G. Finney (from the preface)
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1586&forum=40&7]LECTURE I - WHAT A REVIVAL OF RELIGION IS[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1633&forum=40]LECTURE II - WHEN A REVIVAL IS TO BE EXPECTED[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1814&forum=40]LECTURE III - HOW TO PROMOTE A REVIVAL[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=2321&forum=40]LECTURE IV - PREVAILING PRAYER[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=2676&forum=40]LECTURE V - THE PRAYER OF FAITH[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=2725&forum=40]LECTURE VI - THE SPIRIT OF PRAYER[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=2725&forum=40]LECTURE VII - THE SPIRIT OF PRAYER[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=3356&forum=40]LECTURE VIII. - MEETINGS FOR PRAYER[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=3843&forum=40]LECTURE IX - MEANS TO BE USED WITH SINNERS[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=4083&forum=40]LECTURE X - TO WIN SOULS REQUIRES WISDOM[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=4317&forum=40]LECTURE XI - A WISE MINISTER WILL BE SUCCESSFUL[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=5364&forum=40]LECTURE XII - HOW TO PREACH THE GOSPEL[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6390&forum=40&1]LECTURE XIII - HOW CHURCHES CAN HELP MINISTERS[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7254&forum=40]LECTURE XIV - MEASURES TO PROMOTE REVIVALS
[b]Live Seminars[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/userinfo.php?uid=3371]Robert Wurtz
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=4238]An Introduction to Charles G. Finney with Robert Wurtz II[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=4244]Memoirs of the Revivalist with Robert Wurtz II[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=4378]Overwhelming Conviction with Robert Wurtz II[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=4250]The Conviction We Need by Robert Wurtz II[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=2329&forum=16]SEMINAR: Robert Wurtz II on An Introduction to Charles G. Finney
[b]Highly recommended:
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=12447&forum=40]Finney's Combustion Chamber[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=11636&forum=34]Worldly Amusements - Finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=12480&forum=40]A Tribute to Father Nash[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=4578&forum=40]How To Preach Without Converting Anybody (Charles G. Finney)[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7691&forum=40]"Brethren, let us pray" - Finney in the class-room[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=705&forum=40]Featured Charles G. Finney Quote?[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=16169&forum=34]What is highly esteemed among men, God abhors (humanity without piety) - Finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=210&forum=35]Charles Finney (intresting info)[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1539&forum=34]Is Revival Needed? by Charles Finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=8422&forum=40]Prevailing Prayer (illustrations) finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=3788&forum=35]Preacher Save Thyself by Charles Finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=8893&forum=35]Carless and Stupid -Finney
[b]Various threads:
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=12079&forum=34]FANATICAL EXCITEMENT by Charles Finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=12258&forum=34]the sinner's rejection of mercy -finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=12465&forum=34]The Challenge Of Love - Finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=12856&forum=34]FEATURED ARTICLE: Why So Few Revivals by Charles Finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=13383&forum=34]Prayer – An Essential Link -finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=13576&forum=40]Revivals Under Finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=13742&forum=34]The Great Business Of Life -finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=14926&forum=34]Jesus, A Savior From Sinning -finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=15764&forum=34]\tIn regard to fashion -finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=11620&forum=40]ERRONEOUS REVIVAL PREACHING -finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=4644&forum=40]GOD CANNOT PLEASE SINNERS (Charles G. Finney)[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6480&forum=40]perpetual denial of the gospel -finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=11448&forum=40]TAKE HEED TO THYSELF. By: REV. CHARLES G. FINNEY[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=11449&forum=40]SUPERFICIAL REVIVALS -Finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=11620&forum=40]ERRONEOUS REVIVAL PREACHING -finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=11621&forum=40]HINDRANCES TO A REVIVAL SPIRIT -finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=11747&forum=40]ANY ONE FORM OF SIN CONTINUED IN IS FATAL TO THE SOUL- Rev. Charles G. Finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=13473&forum=40]PREVAILING PRAYER -finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=14118&forum=40]Christians Need To Be Called To Their Knees! -finney[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=15091&forum=40]WHAT IS REVIVAL? -finney
Peacecraft:
Amen! This is exactly what I wanted to say but you already said it! :)
Sister, how can you make such comment and contribute in this thread, when you said in your previous post that you haven't read anything by him:
Peacecraft:
personally I wouldn't have anything to do with Finney, but I[b]haven't actually read anything he has written[/b] so I can't really say much more than that!! :)
This is pretty immature, sister.
Above I have provided some old threads from which you can start.
God bless you,
Kire
I completely agree with hmmhmm on this one.
For goodness sake...Luther and Calvin believed in baptismal regeneration! They persecuted and killed catholics and anabaptists. And Augusine, a much revered man by those of the Reformed persuasion, likewise was catholic in many (if not most) of his views. How come our calvinistic brethren aren't as zealous about attacking THEIR false doctrine as they are about attacking Finney?
These men were heretics...and yet the Lord used them. Is it so hard to accept that someone with not so perfect theology can be used of God?
Hello All,
I disagree with a lot of Finney's theology, but it is obvious to me that he was mightily used by God. 80% of his converts did not backslide unlike a lot of other converts from past revivals. Even many calvinist have admit that Finney was used mightily by God. I thank God it is not thru perfect doctrine we are saved or else I'm in trouble!
Finney may be wrong with a lot of theology, but it is evident that he had a fiery passion for Jesus and that His life was focused on Jesus being above all!
I don't like a lot of his teachings, but I love his passion for Jesus and how he forsaked all for his Beloved!
I dont think Luther was 100% right in his doctrine either... he drank and was a persecutor as well. Did God use him?
Brother the Lord Jesus Christ drank wine, as did Timothy, and the Apostles. Do we write off their words? Drinking is not sin(depends on personal conviction), drunkenness is.
Of course in our day, because Finney and his partnering with the Prohibition Movement in his day has left us with the idea that any drinking is sin. But again the Scriptures don't say this, this is simply a personal conviction.
Psalms 104:15 And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.
As for Luther's persecuting, I would like to see this, I know that he was rather harsh upon Jewish people as he saw their rejection of Christ as the most heinous crime a person could commit. Thus he judged them due for punishment.
No Luther was not perfect(only Christ is), but his doctrines were Biblical, and not rehashed Pelagianism which had already 1000 years prior been judged heresy.
Sadly, it keeps creeping back into the Church, but because it produces visible results men don't question it.
Sister, how can you make such comment and contribute in this thread, when you said in your previous post that you haven't read anything by him:
Brother I don't need to drink cyanide to know it kill me, and that is called wisdom, not immaturity.
These men were heretics...and yet the Lord used them. Is it so hard to accept that someone with not so perfect theology can be used of God?
So you're saying Calvin and Luther were heretics? History unfortunately does not paint this picture as the doctrines that Finney espoused had been time and again declared and shown as heresy by many councils, and men who were much smarter in Theology than I am.
As for the baptismal regeneration comment, if you understand Covenant Theology, you would understand the view of Calvin on baptism, and by the way he did not say anyone was re-born by baptism.
Baptism was the replacement of circumcision in the new covenant, and was necessary to be part of the covenantal family as the child was sanctified by the believing parents. But faith was still necessary for salvation.
Luther's view is a little different, and I do not quite understand it at the moment.
As for the Anabaptists, these were also known as enthusiasts who were against churches, believed that God spoke outside of His word, gave revelation apart from the Scripture etc.
Do you have any proof that Calvin or Luther killed these people?
As for the Catholics, I doubt that Luther or Calvin killed any Catholics. Calvin and the Church at Geneva sent a multitude of missionaries to Rome to evangelize, yet sadly all were killed.
Sister, how can you make such comment and contribute in this thread, when you said in your previous post that you haven't read anything by him:
I may not have read anything by him but I am familiar with his history and theology. The original thread was asking if someone should read some books by him, having not read them, I don't really know about the content of those books. But from what I understand of his invention of alter calls and his twisted theology...that is enough for me to have nothing to do with this man and his teaching. Sorry, maybe I should have clarified that in the beginning.
Also, I have been keeping up on this thread and what is being discussed here. I am more informed now than I was at the beginning.
In addition to that, even if I didn't have any knowledge of Finney I would agree with roaringlamb about the fact that we should be more concerned about men who preach the truth of the Word of God. It doesn't matter how zealous or filled with the spirit they APPEAR to be. It doesn't matter how holy they appear or even the "results" we see. It doesn't matter how much srcipture he quotes! A man can do this and not even be a Christian! There are many pastors today who will stand before God and say, Lord, Lord did we not perform miracles in your name...etc. And God will send them to hell. I'm not saying Finney wasn't saved, I don't know that, only God does. But what a preacher needs to uphold more than anything is the holy Word of God. Not everyone gets everything perfect, but theologically he was WAY off. There's a difference between theology that is crutial and that which is secondary. One Finney was enough to do a lot of damage to our culture just by his institution of alter calls. We've got an entire nation that thinks they are saved because they said a prayer or went up on a alter call. I think we would have been much better off without him in my opinion, regardless of how much "good" he may have done. But that's just me and I'm sure God has a purpose in all things.
Saints, here is a classic illustration given by Finney which I think neatly sums up his evangelism theology. Read it honestly, and then judge for yourselves his eternal doom:
"Suppose yourself to be standing on the bank of the Falls of Niagara. As you stand upon the verge of the precipice, you behold a man lost in deep reverie, approaching its verge unconscious of his danger. He approaches nearer and nearer, until he actually lifts his foot to take the final step that shall plunge him in destruction. At this moment you lift your warning voice above the roar of the foaming waters, and cry out, Stop. The voice pierces his ear, and breaks the charm that binds him; he turns instantly upon his heel, all pale and aghast he retires, quivering, from the verge of death. He reels, and almost swoons with horror; turns and walks slowly to the public house; you follow him; the manifest agitation in his countenance calls numbers around him; and on your approach, he points to you, and says, That man saved my life. Here he ascribes the work to you; and certainly there is a sense in which you had saved him. But, on being further questioned, he says, Stop! how that word rings in my ears. Oh, that was to me the word of life. Here he ascribes it to the word that aroused him, and caused him to turn. But, on conversing still further, he said, had I not turned at that instant, I should have been a dead man. Here he speaks of it, and truly, as his own act; but directly you hear him say, O the mercy of God; if God had not interposed, I should have been lost. Now the only defect in this illustration is this: In the case supposed, the only interference on the part of God, was a providential one; and the only sense in which the saving of the man's life is ascribed to him, is in a providential sense. But in the conversion of a sinner there is something more than the providence of God employed; for here not only does the providence of God so order it, that the preacher cries, Stop, but the Spirit of God forces the truth home upon him with such tremendous power as to induce him to turn."
- Charles G. Finney, from the sermon "Sinners Bound to Change Their Own Hearts"
(edit) If I may offer a word of advice. When dealing with Finney, I believe it is important to read the sermons in their completeness. I don't think many of his staunchest critics have. Finney bashing is primarily the product of biased regurgitation; his enemies take out snippets from his messages that fit the bill. Indeed, any preacher can fall prey to this unfairness and be made to look either the heretic, the legalist, or the antinomian (take your pick). I find a curiously elusive balance in Finney's works, where just when I think the man is an outright Pelagian, he speaks of the grand sovereignty of God and such a love for Jesus that I shake my head in bewilderment. I can't help feeling that perhaps I have misjudged him, misjudged his heart, though I certainly can't condone the semi-pelagianistic undercurrent that flavors his theology. That said, I am not convinced that Finney was a full-blown heretic; I think he is stigmatized by people who haven't taken the time (or have the attention) to read his ouvre in its entirety with an unbiased heart. I really think this brother's life and ministry and love for the Lord Jesus Christ deserve such fair treatment. We would be surprised what we find.
but because it produces visible results men don't question it.
LOL! Whoever holds to this idea doesn't know much about the Anabaptists!As for the Anabaptists, these were also known as enthusiasts who were against churches, believed that God spoke outside of His word, gave revelation apart from the Scripture etc.
:lol: :-D :-)
One Finney was enough to do a lot of damage to our culture just by his institution of alter calls. We've got an entire nation that thinks they are saved because they said a prayer or went up on a alter call. I think we would have been much better off without him in my opinion, regardless of how much "good" he may have done. But that's just me and I'm sure God has a purpose in all things.
LOL! Whoever holds to this idea doesn't know much about the Anabaptists!
All depends on which time period you're talking brother. Look into some Church history, and you'll see it for yourself.
As for people being overwhelmed due to a man and his supposed godliness, or manifestation of the Spirit, I don't know, I wasn't there.
So far as Scripture is concerned, this usually only happens with angels, or the Lord Jesus Himself.
Better question though, what happened to these people afterwards? We don't hear too much about that do we. If you say they were saved because of this, I disagree, for the Gospel alone is what God uses to save, and uses men to proclaim it. it is unfortunate that these "experiences" are heralded and held as the standard for godliness. We have all that the Father has given us in Christ.
If in fact these things are true, Paul could have used a little of what they had, as he said that in presence he was weak, and sought only to preach Christ and Him crucified.
Ah, see! You dismiss everything that anyone of the opposite view has to say without any consideration of it's validity or invalidity.
If in fact these things are true, Paul could have used a little of what they had, as he said that in presence he was weak, and sought only to preach Christ and Him crucified.
That said, I am not convinced that Finney was a full-blown heretic; I think he is stigmatized by people who haven't taken the time (or have the attention) to read his ouvre in its entirty and with an unbiased heart. I really think this brother's life and ministry and love for the Lord Jesus Christ deserve such treatment.
Brother I have read, and continue to read his works because I see his theology as too influential upon today's Church.
Just his belief about Christ only being an example, but not an actual Saviour is enough to write him off for me. All I can do is challenge the theology as I see so many of my brethren wrecked because they can never measure up to what Finney says is a Christian.
Pelagianism(which is what Finney taught, semi-Pelagian at best)states that men can be sinless, that Christ was not the only sinless man to ever live, and that His death only shows God's anger at sin,but does nothing to procure salvation for anyone. yet the Scriptures are clear that Christ indeed died for the sins of His people, and that He who knew no sin was made sin for us, so that we would be made the righteousness of God in Him. To go against this is unbiblical, and necessitates warning, not commendation.
I love you brother, and that is why I continue to pose the opposite view, as I once thought Finney was the do all end all, and all it did was make me a Pharisee one day, and suicidal the next because I did not see that Christ was sufficient because Finney and his disciples don't teach that. Man has to keep up his salvation or else he will be lost.
This of course leads to endless introspection culminating in despair and despondence for in me there is nothing good, and I need Someone outside of me, something alien to my nature, I must be re-born, and then I am a child never to be cast away, for what cruelty for a man to adopt a child only to return it later to the orphanage! Our God is not like that at all.
for what cruelty for a man to adopt a child only to return it later to the orphanage! Our God is not like that at all.
No God creates some with just this purpose to torment them forever in hell according to some doctrines :-)
I heard another intresting quote today by John Wesley, Something like " if you say you can not be saved from sin in this life and we have to wait for death to be saved from sin, then death is your savior not Christ "
I tottaly blew it on that quote :-) i go look for it to do Wesley justice
Ah, see! You dismiss everything that anyone of the opposite view has to say without any consideration of it's validity or invalidity.
Brother there is a "manifestation" that goes around called the Maitreya and he is supposed to be the second coming. People faint and "repent" in his presence as well, so is this of God?
There is another man who supposedly heals people by slapping them on the head and even in his presence, men tremble on the ground and while standing is this of God?
It is the Scriptures that must be preached, not experiences, as the Scriptures are true above all else.
But you seem to be forgetting that his preaching was done in the demonstration of the Spirit and power.
Yes and the evidence of that was God regenerating hearts so that those who "heard" would believe.
The Spirit does not seek to glorify a man, but rather Christ as He is presented in the gospel.
No God creates some with just this purpose to torment them forever in hell according to some doctrines
But God has not adopted and does not adopt all men.
I once thought Finney was the do all end all, and all it did was make me a Pharisee one day
Dear brother, can't you see that you are basing a bias on your own personal experience? I know plenty of people that haven't become pharisees by reading Finney. They are actually very blessed, edified, and it pleases God to grow them through Finney's ministry. If someone becomes a pharisee by reading Finney...I contend that it is not Finney's fault. Finney is a blessing to me, just like Edwards is...and Booth and Wesley and Baxter. Guyon is a blessing. We need to remember that all these writers are only seasonings for the main course - the Word. People stumble and become pharisees when they are imbalanced, when they refuse to eat healthily. I happen to believe reading Finney can be good for you - in moderate dosage. Reading the Puritans can be good for you too - moderately, otherwise you can swing to the other extreme and become a holer-than-thou delusionist. Would it be the Puritans' fault if this were to happen? By the way, one can read nothing but the pure Word of God and become a heretic too.
Brother if a Jehovah's Witness came to your door and told you that he had some beneficial reading for you, would you read it knowing that they have an unbiblical view of Christ?
Finney's view of Christ as an impotent and helpless example of how man must live to be saved is not Biblical, this is the concern I have.
roaringlamb wrote:
Brother I don't need to drink cyanide to know it kill me, and that is called wisdom, not immaturity.
Brother, this is deathly serious statement. And now I am in confusion, would you like to make some clarification? Thank you.
I would be glad if you answer every question seperately.
You say that a book written by Leonard Ravenhill had the greatest influence in your life, (verification [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=3372&forum=35&start=10&viewmode=flat&order=0#22552]here[i]to drink cyanide to know it kill me
Now, here is where my confusion comes from. How can we explain these things?
Something else, according to your statement, all these years what brother Paul, Greg, Robert,me and others, posting these articles and sermons here (you can see the links on page 3) were doing nothing else, but poisoning the body of Christ all around the world, and brother, to give poison to the flock, this is a terrible sin, indescribable sin, which has caused many to die. I am trembling even of the thought of that. Brother, could you say that we have done that? That we have done that terrible sin?
Brother, have you read the biography of Jonathan Goforth, one of the first and greatest missionaries in China? He stated that turning poing in his life was reading Finney's Lectures of Revival, and his life was absolutely transformed after that. How can it be that a [i]cyanide
How can it be that A.W.Tozer who respected him as saint and mighty man of God, Paris Reidhead, T. Austin-Sparks, Oswald Smith and thousands others men of God who were influenced by Finney, were poisoned and death?
And most of them here on these forums are highly esteemed, read and heard, are we are listening and reading them death or on the way to die?
Think brother on these things. Either is poison, either is life coming from the presence of God. This is deathly serious thing and not to be taken lightly. Christian life is responsible life and every word and action can cause either death or life, someone to stumble or to be lifted up. We have accountability for every word.
Thanks for the answers.
Kire
roaringlamb wrote:But God has not adopted and does not adopt all men.
No he hasent, but he could do it if men allowed him to do it for them, but men chose to stay in their rebellion.
Finney's view of Christ as an impotent and helpless example of how man must live to be saved is not Biblical, this is the concern I have.
But I don't see this in his writings, brother. I don't see this at all, and I've ready many of his sermons and books. I do understand your concern. You must take into consideration that not everyone reads Finney the same way. There were and are holier men of God with greater minds than us both who found edification in Finney. Tozer is one. Ravenhill. The great travailing Daniel Nash. Dear brother, comparing Finney's Christ to Charles Russell's? My goodness, you must really despise the man!
[b]Yes and the evidence of that was God regenerating hearts so that those who "heard" would believe.[/b]
The Spirit does not seek to glorify a man, but rather Christ as He is presented in the gospel.
I heard another intresting quote today by John Wesley, Something like " if you say you can not be saved from sin in this life and we have to wait for death to be saved from sin, then death is your savior not Christ "I tottaly blew it on that quote i go look for it to do Wesley justice
other then that everyone should watch this video it is by Ron Baily ( Philologos )
[url=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4709281493391119654]Here is the First Part
You say that a book written by Leonard Ravenhill had the greatest influence in your life, (verification here). Probably the most esteemed men of God besides of Wesley and Brainard, to him was Finney.We can see Ravenhill quoting him all the time. Now according to your quote above, "to drink cyanide to know it kill me" Ravenhill drunk poisoned food, and it is naturally that when you drink cyanide to die.
Brother look at the date on that post, 10/2004. I told you I have changed.
Brother I to be honest, I do not care what men say too much anymore. Ravenhill has been a blessing in some ways, yet he too had a wrong view of justification(now I'll duck as the stones go by). but just because a man who we esteem says something, we must look at how the Church has thought of it in the past, and gauge ourselves from there. We are not the first to come into Christianity, nor are we the last. but the path we are headed down with all this "man can" ideology is going to do so much damage.
Yes I have read pretty much all the books you've listed brother, and I will be selling them soon on e-bay if you want some.
No offense but alot of it is nothing more than Roman Catholic teaching under a Protestant cloak. The confusion of justification and sanctification is prevailing within these books, and here on SI as well. By the grace of God, it is not confusing in my own heart any longer, and thus I rejoice to know that I am my beloved's and my Beloved is mine.
But I don't see this in his writings, brother.
It is mainly in his work on Theology. That is what is so hard to understand about him, one minute he is telling people of Christ as powerful to save, but then the next saying that man must save himself by his obedience. Confusing to say the least.
Comparing Finney's Christ to Charles Russell's? My goodness, you must really despise the man! It must have been terrible what you went though, and I don't say that flippantly. Usually when someone comes out with both guns blazing against Finney or Wesley
Brother Paul we know that there is one Christ as He is presented in Scripture and all else are false Christs, that is what I saying.
I do not despise the man Charles Finney, simply the fact that he has resurrected that which has been done away with in the past and brought it back in new clothes, and people are swallowing hook, line, and sinker.
I lived under this endless search for salvation within my own works, not understanding that Christ was enough for so long, and now I am free. Thus it gives me great heartache to see others swept into it especially those young in the faith as they have no foundation or frame work to weigh these things against.
It is my concern for the health of my brethren, that they see their great justification through Christ and His work, that urges me on.
Brother Paul we know that there is one Christ as He is presented in Scripture and all else are false Christs, that is what I saying.
Do you then believe Finney's revivals were false, and that Nash travailed for souls in vain, laboring under a man who was a deceiver and worker of Satan? You know that if a man preaches a false christ, he is a dog.
Do you then believe Finney's revivals were false, and that Nash travailed for souls in vain, laboring under a man who was a deceiver and worker of Satan? You know that if a man preaches a false christ, he is a dog.
I don't know brother. I do know that Paul did say that those who sought to be justified by the Law had fallen from grace, and Christ was of no use to them.
And I know that Finney's theology centers around man's obedience to the moral law. So if I had to judge between Paul's words and Finney.....
But praise God, we can now preach justification by faith alone brother, and let God give life to whom He will.
I don't know brother.
Thank you for the honesty.
Grace to you and peace,
Brother Paul
Whoah! Presumption at it's finest! Even Peter gave altar calls in a certain sense. The poeple under conviction said "what shall we do to be saved?!" and Peter showed them the way of salvation. Altar calls are not what has ruined this country. And besides, you have no idea what this country would be like now if Finney had never existed and neither do I so we have absolutely no business making assuptions like that. That's like saying "my life would be so much better if my great-grandpa had raised cows instead of farming." Tell God to his face the assumption you just made about Finney and see what He has to say about it.
The altar call again I say is not what has ruined this country, neither was Azusa Street, neither was Bill Clinton, and neither was Finney.
There isn't one of us here on this forum that knows where or what the turning point was in the state of religion in our country so let's not make fools out of ourselves by making assumptions like this. Let's be much more careful in the assumptions and judgments we make.
When I say the world might have been better off without him... try to understand what I'm truly saying here. Of course I don't know how the world would be different with or without him. It just seems that we look at the seemingly good influences a man can have on the world and disregard a lot of the rest. Let me give an example. I had quite a discussion with a preacher who uses secular heavy metal music in his worship services... who names his sermons like... "What a Christian can learn from a Jedi..." etc.. he will use all sorts of stuff just to attract people... and when he gets them there and preaches he never addresses the heart issue of sin. People keep telling him he is doing such a wonderful thing and it is better that he is doing something and these people are hearing something about Jesus. All the while I'm thinking... this is ridiculous, not honoring to God and he is just wasting his time. Let's use worldly means to draw a crowd and then talk about Jesus but not address sin. The man might as well not preach. Maybe that sounds judgemental and presumptous as well, lol. But that's kinda the same thing I'm getting at with Finney. I've read some mormon stuff that used scripture and seemed good, I didn't even know it was mormon... until I delved a little deeper. Just because something has a lot of good in it does not make it good. If I made brownies and put 99% brownie mix and 1% poop in it, I'd still be eating poop. So... really I'd be better off not eating the brownies, don't you think? Anything mixed in with truth that isn't truth results is something that is not truth.
Laura,
You are comparing the man's ministry to eating poop? Pretty lofty accusations for someone who has not familiarized themselves with his preaching.
"But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgement for every careless word they have spoken."
Matthew 12:36
If there were altar calls done by Finney, I can assure you he was not having them repeat the sinner's prayer and sending them on their merry way.
Roaring Lamb,
You compared Finney's teaching to cyanide which influenced men you once held dear. Now you say you are going to sell their books on ebay. Shouldn't you rather burn them if you truly feel this way, then knowingly give them cyanide.
I must admit I find this very sad that we are trashing a man's ministry that probably had more of an impact then any one here will ever attain to. What a shame.
Murray
Lol, I'm sure Peter's "alter calls" were much different than Finney's my friend :)
Alter calls are a big problem, maybe not the root of the problem, but evidence of a large problem at hand I would think.
No, I do realize the damage done by the altar calls of today but again, they're just a reflection of the problem and not the problem itself. If you really think about it you have to come to the conclusion that "sinner's prayerism" or "easy believism" is a totally works based religion that's full of false assurance of a one-way ticket to heaven with a great ride on the way there. Now, I'm not a monk that thinks that any kind of satisfaction or enjoyment in life is sin but let's be real, Jesus said we have to forsake all and follow Him. He said in this world we will have tribulation. Sorry, I'm getting side-tracked.I cannot tell you how it grieves my heart to hear someone say... repeat this prayer, come forward and give your life to Christ... this day you are saved because God's word says if you do this and this and this you will be saved, welcome to the family of God, blah, blah, blah. It's a huge problem in our culture, because people don't understand how else anyone can be saved!!! People think that the only way to get saved is by going up on an alter call. It's done a lot more damage than I think you might realize.
As far as Finney and mormonism and what not- whatever comparison you want to make there-
anyone taking an honest and objective look at the fruit of his ministry can tell you that it wasn't "poop" or "cyanide" though some would have us feel that way. Just as brother Ron stated, Finney's theology was primarily a reaction against the calvinism of his day and it seems to me that the issues that people here on the forum have with Finney are largely a reaction to some other problem to which they have linked Finney or his ministry.
Finney, by the way, had far fewer backsliders than Moody did. It's a wonder that Moody doesn't take more hits than he does.
Would to God that we had another man in this God-forsaking country under whose preaching people would weep with conviction.
I must admit I find this very sad that we are trashing a man's ministry that probably had more of an impact then any one here will ever attain to. What a shame.
Brother I do not feel we are trashing a man's ministry so much as warning people of dangerous fruit.
Allow me to repeat myself here, if a man has a different Christ than the one in the Bible, he is doing something wrong. I find it very funny that if I was to come on here and blast away at any of the Calvinist preachers of the past, there would be a chorus of amens, and folks lining up to start the fires. But if one dare touch the golden calf of Ravenhill(appreciate his love for revival, not his theology), Finney, or Wesley, ohhh then we are in trouble, and acting unbrotherly, and unloving.
As for the books, you are right, I should burn them, but that would not be right. People should be able to grow through their theology as I did. None should be forced into a belief simply because it is the prevailing view. I would rather have folks read these books, then read their Bible, and see the difference.
Brothers, and sister, I would love to talk more, but I am going on vacation with my wife and will be gone for a week. Please don't think I am avoiding the questions, and do keep us in your prayers.
Blessings to you all.
Hi Murray
You are comparing the man's ministry to eating poop? Pretty lofty accusations for someone who has not familiarized themselves with his preaching.
I think you misunderstand what I was trying to show by the illustration. A comment was made earlier, that we can just take what we want from Finney's writings and throw out the bad stuff... I don't know but it makes me wonder why we'd want to read if we know we are going to have to throw a lot of his ideas out. If truth is mixed with something that isn't truth... then its not really truth...is it?
I don't know but it makes me wonder why we'd want to read if we know we are going to have to throw a lot of his ideas out. If truth is mixed with something that isn't truth... then its not really truth...is it?
Finney was a repentance preacher that lived in a time when folk were locked up in the belief that God sovereignly moves upon a person to bring them to repentance. Finney did not believe that. He believed that a person can and must obey God- right now. He gave many illustrations of this. Most of them make perfect sense.
The problem with Finney is that he did not appreciate the concept of a person being a slave to Sin or having a Sinful nature in the sense that the reformers understood it. If I were conversating with Finney today I would focus all the attention on "having begun in the Spirit..." from Galatians. The indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit is what makes the fruit of the Spirit possible. Law cannot do it. Asceticism cannot do it. Strict moral disciplines cannot do it. You can strip a thorn bush of it's barbs, but in time they will return. The whole nature of the tree needs to change. This cannot happen any other way that through a re-gene-eration. The Spirit that now works in the children of disobedience to bring forth fruit unto death has to be removed and the Holy Spirit must take it's place. This is light years from a law based ascetic life. It is a life of walking in the Spirit and bearing the fruit of the Spirit. Of all people that crafted methods of simulating fruit bearing- Finney's works are likely the finest. But it is a [i]fear[u]must
I think this is a fair and honest assessment of the treatment brother Finney receives. The qoute at the end is from Finney himself:
"It is very sad, but much of what is said about Finney is little more than slander. That his opponents are theologically motivated is clear since they are all strict Calvinists. These charges are being made by them, not because the historical evidence bears them out, but because (in their minds) the woes of the church must, as a matter of course, come from the fact that Calvinism is no longer the dominant theological paradigm. And no single person was more prominent in helping to bring this about than Charles G. Finney. Thus, if they can prove that Finney's theology was man-centered, his methodology was gimmickry, and his revivals were spurious, they can rest assured that history confirms that their theology is correct. But they end up warping the historical data in order to prove their point, and they end up slandering one of the finest preachers the American church has ever seen.
Finney's messages still remain a vital part of evangelical Christianity, and will for a long time to come. He still speaks, and for this we can be thankful. His voice still towers in eloquence as he thunders out the strictures of God's violated law against sinners. His voice glows with passion as he denounces slavery, intemperance, and all compromise with sin. His voice sparkles with brilliance as he unfolds the riches of systematic theology. And from the grave his voice cracks with sorrow as he ponders those who distort the truth about him and his revivals. He still speaks, and he will speak:
"'And now, will you allow me to ask, Where have I done so much to disparage revivals? What churches have I labored in where so much evil has resulted? When have they "wept tears of blood" or any other tears, because of evils that have resulted from my labors? . . . Where, I ask, have I rent churches, introduced divisions, led the church astray, or unsettled pastors? I appeal to those who know. Let those churches and ministers who have been so injured by any fault of mine, speak.
Give us facts, names, dates, places, not hearsay. I have heard much talk; give us truth. Do not tell us what you have heard; tell us what you know, or prove what you say, not by loose report but by credible witnesses. If any such facts as are reported, have occurred under my ministry, tell us when and where. I want to know them myself, and I want others to know them. I ask not that you should speak in my praise, but speak against me and my labors, if you have aught to say. But give your name, your residence, your facts. Publish them in the face of the churches and ministers where they occurred. I will not deny them, if they are true. But I beseech my brethren slander not those glorious revivals. If there ever were genuine revivals, I believe those were such. If there is any true religion in the world, I believe it is found in the mass of those precious converts, who have ever since made up no small portion of the membership of those churches. Things may have resulted to some of those churches of which I am not informed. But I have frequently been at the place where most of them occurred, and I must say that if any churches were blessed by revivals they have been. . . . But enough. For my own sake I would not speak. But for the cause of revivals I will speak.'"
[url=http://www.gospeltruth.net/nouncertain.htm]source
I think you're right brother Paul in saying that that is a fair assessment of the treatment Finney receives.
If you take a look at [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=19599&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Charles G Finney and Moral Government
However, leaving aside the man and his methods, it is important to examine his teaching and see if it squares with the scripture, and this I am attempting to do in this thread.
You have nothing to lose but your illusions. ;-)
it is important to examine his teaching and see if it squares with the scripture
I don't know that anyone here sees Finney's theology squaring 100% with scripture (maybe Jesse Morrell does), so I think you might be preaching to the choir for the majority of us. Admittedly, Finney had quite the anti-calvinistc and rationally complex view on some of the most vital cores of Christianity, and I totally understand how this can work to his detriment.
I've found that if you dig deep enough with any divine you'll eventually hit a bone. I hit bones with Watson, Baxter, Wilkerson, Finney, Poonen, Ravenhill, Sparks. Some more bones than others. Finney's got a whole diplodocus beneath the surface, but this doesn't prevent me from being edified from some of his writings. I try to filter Finney through the sieve of God's Word, and certain things just don't process for me. The image conjured is that of an archeologist with a pin-brush and tweezer, picking through the rubble. The difference, I find, between digging through Finney and someone else like Sibbes or Watson or Spurgeon is just the matter of brush size (certain things also from these men don't process for me either!). Though brushes are needed for all digs, some I think we can use more liberally. Some sieves need holes with larger diameters than others. Nevertheless, I have found jewels in Finney, and the ones I have found are quite fine.
Brother Paul
I think Paul is right on Ron. I haven't seen anyone on here endorse all of Finney's theology (except maybe Jesse, like Paul mentioned). I think the issue at stake here is the way he is attacked by the calvinist camp without looking at things objectively. They see everything through the filter of their theology and anything that doesn't fit through that filter is dismissed without consideration. Even if it's hard, real evidence. I don't endorse much Finney's theology. I think you're exactly right in saying that it's primarily a reaction based on human reason to the empty calvinism of the day. Bad place to start if you ask me. But regardless, I can't deny his heart for God [i]or
you have nothing to lose but your illusions!;-)
Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.
Donate