The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney
- 936 views
I’ve been involved in similar discussions about Charles Finney in years gone by. I’ve learned that some will defend Finney regardless of the evidence. Quotations of support from others, no matter how appreciative, does nothing to answer the evidence of Finney’s heresies. The famous men who endorsed him probably had not seen the evidence we have today, some of which has been posted above. Charles Spurgeon undoubtedly made his comments before Finney wrote his Systematic Theology. To his admirers, Finney was a great evangelist and the father of the modern altar call. That, for some, is enough to enshrine him in the hall of fame.
Let’s put preconceived notions aside, and deal strictly with the evidence available to us today. Deal with Finney’s heretical statements. Can his defenders endorse them? If not, are they willing to concede that Finney might not have been the great Christian evangelist many suppose? I’m afraid it’s the age-old problem of apparent visible success. If a man is “successful”, draws large crowds, and reports many conversions, he has to be good. Hopefully, discerning Bible believers have learned to look beyond surface impressions to examine true substance.
G. N. Barkman
Never have seen the likes pile up for comments like I have on this thread. Wow.
David, what you’re doing, beyond relying on secondary sources, is doing “appeal to authority.” Whether Graham, or Rice, or whoever endorses Finney’s work, with or without qualifications, proves very little. Moreover, your comment about it being about Calvinism is a nice straw man—an argument which really does not bear any resemblance to the argument presented. It also has strong marks of the red herring and ad hominem.
Gentle hint for you; if your comments would qualify as a good object lesson on what not to do for a class in informal logic, maybe you need to rethink how you’re doing things. I would suggest you start by reading the comments Finney made on various topics as listed by other commenters, and then proceed, if you like, to Finney’s systematics. The ugly reality is that any fool can look plausibly pastorial in a snippet from one of his books, just like Joel Osteen and T.D. Jakes do today. It is when one takes a few steps back that one can see clearly what’s really going on with some doctrines that are clearly bald-faced lies from the pit of Hell.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
“The atonement did not consist in the literal payment of the debt of sinners, in the sense which the Universalists maintain; that it simply rendered the salvation of all men possible, and did not of itself lay God under obligation to save anybody; that it was not true that Christ suffered just what those for whom He died deserved to suffer; that no such thing as that was taught in the Bible, and no such thing was true; that, on the contrary, Christ died simply to remove an insurmountable obstacle out of the way of God forgiving sinners, so as to render it possible for Him to proclaim a universal amnesty, inviting all men to repent, to believe in Christ, and to accept salvation; that instead of having satisfied retributive justice, and borne just what sinners deserved, Christ had only satisfied public justice, by honouring the law, both in His obedience and death, thus rendering it safe for God to pardon sin, to pardon the sins of any man and of all men who would repent and believe in Him. I maintained that Christ, in His atonement, merely did that which was necessary as a condition of the forgiveness of sins; and not that which cancelled sin, in the sense of literally paying the indebtedness of sinners.” -Charles G. Finney, Memoirs of Rev. Charles G. Finney.
Take note that this is a primary source. While you may disagree, this is not a heretical view.
David R. Brumbelow
Salvation “is not founded in Christ’s literally suffering the exact penalty of the Law for them, and in this sense literally purchasing their justification and eternal salvation.” (Lectures On Systematic Theology, p. 747)
This Finney quote, stated above in this thread, is an accurate, yet out of context and disingenuous quote. See, Charles G. Finney on Atonement, quote above. Finney was simply arguing against a literal payment view of the atonement, not denying the atonement and salvation.
Also, note again the (primary source), Finney on Salvation, quote above.
Perhaps some Finney critics should do a little more reading of Finney. And, perhaps they should more fairly quote and criticize him.
I would not agree with everything Finney taught, just as Charles H. Spurgeon and John R. Rice did not agree with him on everything. Yet, like them, I admire Finney and the great evangelistic ministry he had.
David R. Brumbelow
“Several theologians have held that regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit alone … but I might just as lawfully insist that it is the work of man alone.” (Charles Finney, ‘Lectures On Systematic Theology’: Abridged Edition, p. 224)
This quote is given above as a criticism of Finney. Makes him sound heretical. Read his fuller quote, however, and it shows Finney’s correct view, and his view here is very biblical. He is simply pointing out that the Bible ascribes different persons, and other agencies, as bringing about salvation.
In Context
“There are generally other agents [in regeneration, salvation] , one or more human beings concerned in persuading the sinner to turn. The Bible recognizes both the subject and the preacher as agents in the work. Thus Paul says: “ I have begotten you through the gospel.” Here the same word is used which is used in another case, where regeneration is ascribed to God.
Again an apostle says, “ Ye have purified your souls by obeying the truth.” Here the work is ascribed to the subject. There are then always two, and generally more than two agents employed in effecting the work. Several theologians have held that regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit alone. In proof of this they cite those passages that ascribe it to God. But I might just as lawfully insist that it is the work of man alone, and quote those passages that ascribe it to man, to substantiate my position. Or I might assert that it is alone the work of the subject, and in proof of this position quote those passages that ascribe it to the subject. Or again, I might assert that it is effected by the truth alone, and quote such passages as the following to substantiate my position: ‘Of his own will begat He us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures.’—James 1:18. ‘Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.’—1 Peter 1:23.”
-Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology. Note: this is a primary source.
For a little more detail on different people having a biblical part in saving others, yes, saving others!, see:
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2016/09/can-christian-save-others-yes.html
David R. Brumelow
[David R. Brumbelow]I don’t know. That still seems heretical to me. If “Finney was simply arguing against a literal payment view of the atonement, not denying the atonement and salvation,” can you show me what his view of the atonement actually is? Is there anywhere that he advocates for substitutionary atonement? What does he mean by denying “retributive justice” and what exactly does he mean by “public justice?” What does he say about the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to our account? How in Finney’s theology is God both Just and the Justifier?Take note that this is a primary source. While you may disagree, this is not a heretical view.
David R. Brumbelow
[David R. Brumbelow]This is wrong, too. Regeneration is a specific thing and a work specifically of the Holy Spirit alone. God may use people to lead others to Christ, to call on men to put their faith in Christ and be saved, but the work of regeneration is something only God can do. Finney is completely wrong here. There is no place where the Bible gives man credit for the work of regeneration. All the passages that Finney quotes are referring to other things – things perhaps connected to salvation but not regeneration.“Several theologians have held that regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit alone … but I might just as lawfully insist that it is the work of man alone.” (Charles Finney, ‘Lectures On Systematic Theology’: Abridged Edition, p. 224)
This quote is given above as a criticism of Finney. Makes him sound heretical. Read his fuller quote, however, and it shows Finney’s correct view, and his view here is very biblical. He is simply pointing out that the Bible ascribes different persons, and other agencies, as bringing about salvation.
In Context
“There are generally other agents [in regeneration, salvation] , one or more human beings concerned in persuading the sinner to turn. The Bible recognizes both the subject and the preacher as agents in the work. Thus Paul says: “ I have begotten you through the gospel.” Here the same word is used which is used in another case, where regeneration is ascribed to God.
Your citations from Finney’s systematic only convince me more that the man was a heretic. I’ll re-read some of it tonight.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
“What is gospel justification? It consists not in the law pronouncing the sinner just, but in his being ultimately governmentally treated as if he were just; that is, it consists in a governmental decree of pardon or amnesty—in arresting and setting aside the execution of the incurred penalty of law—in pardoning and restoring to favor those who have sinned, and those whom the law had pronounced guilty, and upon whom it bad passed the sentence of eternal death, and rewarding them as if they had been righteous.”
“The vicarious suffering or atonement of Christ is a condition of justification, or of the pardon and acceptance of penitent sinners.”
-Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology. Note: this is a primary source.
Finney had a different angle than others, on some doctrine. In his explanations, it is easy to take a quote out of context and make him sound heretical. It is also dishonest and unfair. Read the entire section, and other of his writings, to honestly get his view.
David R. Brumbelow
I’ll re-read some of it tonight, David. I’d be very interested to know if there are any good scholarly articles chronicling his methodology, theology and his impact on the revivalist tradition of evangelism. I’ll search Galaxie this evening, too.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
AndyE,
What is your definition and differentiation of Regeneration and Salvation?
The Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, talked about “saving” people. And this was in reference to salvation or regeneration.
If by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. -Romans 11:14
For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? -1 Corinthians 7:16
To the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. -1 Corinthians 9:22
Obviously, Jesus saves us through His sacrificial death. Yet, Scripture also speaks of others saving us through witness and preaching. See my article linked above. Scripture is not always as picky about terminology as we sometimes are. Finney seemed to notice and expound this as well.
I still maintain we may disagree with Finney, we may say things differently than Finney, he certainly had his own angle about some doctrines, but he was no heretic.
David R. Brumbelow
[David R. Brumbelow]I would say that salvation is a more general term that basically refers to deliverance from sin and its power, penalty, and presence. There are many things that make up our salvation - justification, redemption, propitiation, imputed righteousness, forgiveness, sanctification, glorification, adoption, union with Christ, and regeneration (and probably some other things that I’m forgetting).AndyE,
What is your definition and differentiation of Regeneration and Salvation?
Regeneration is a specific act where God makes us alive, gives us new life, raises us spiritually, makes us born again.
We need to be picky when it comes to theological concepts like regeneration. It’s one thing to use a generic term for deliverance to highlight man’s role in leading people to salvation, but it is quite another to attribute a specific element of salvation, such as regeneration (or justification, propitiation, glorification, etc) and say that man has a role in that.
[David R. Brumbelow]AndyE,
What is your definition and differentiation of Regeneration and Salvation?
The Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, talked about “saving” people. And this was in reference to salvation or regeneration.
If by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. -Romans 11:14
For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? -1 Corinthians 7:16
To the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. -1 Corinthians 9:22
Obviously, Jesus saves us through His sacrificial death. Yet, Scripture also speaks of others saving us through witness and preaching. See my article linked above. Scripture is not always as picky about terminology as we sometimes are. Finney seemed to notice and expound this as well.
I still maintain we may disagree with Finney, we may say things differently than Finney, he certainly had his own angle about some doctrines, but he was no heretic.
David R. Brumbelow
….is that David’s cherry-picking a few verses to support Finney in the same way that he does regarding wine to argue that must/wine in fermentation tanks proves non-alcoholic wines in Bible times. He’s using figurative language used a handful of times to come to a conclusion that simply does not work well with the majority of uses, variations of “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” If one looks at the usage of Strong’s 4982 in the way David does, we would also find that things like jealousy (Romans 11:14) have a soteriological impact.
That’s simply not how sound exegesis and hermeneutics works. The obvious clarifies the obscure, not vice versa.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Tyler,
I’m sure there are scholarly treatments of Finney, pro and con. My concern is that people understand Finney’s complete doctrinal positions before they condemn him. Also, that they recognize they may disagree with him on non-fundamental doctrines, but that does not make him a heretic. Heresy is a word we should use with caution, and solid, fair evidence. Are strict Calvinists going to disagree with Finney? Of course. But that does not mean Finney is a heretic.
I’d recommend you check out The Life and Ministry of Charles G. Finney by Dr. Lewis A. Drummond, Bethany House Publishers; 1983. Drummond was a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Especially the chapter on “The Educator’s Theology.” This chapter answers a number of accusations from Finney’s critics.
David R. Brumbelow
Tyler,
You might also be interested in the following book. I haven’t read it, but just ordered it. It looks good.
Theology of the American Revivalists: The Theology of the Great Awakenings from Edwards to Finney, by Robert Caldwell, IVP Academic; 2017.
David R. Brumbelow
Discussion