The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney
- 936 views
[David R. Brumbelow]I’m sorry, if Finney isn’t a heretic, from his own words, I have no idea who would qualify. Pelagius would get a pass too, no doubt.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
Finney was also a liar, in case you didn’t notice: this may not mean much to you Independent Baptists, but as a Presbyterian minister, he was under oath to uphold the Westminster Standards—which he, of course, swore to, while secretly rejecting them; then ignored and actively undermined with his teaching and theology.
Btw, when I state someone is a heretic, I am not making a statement about their eternal destiny. That’s above my pay grade. I’m saying that their teaching clearly deviates from Christian orthodoxy on essential doctrines. There is a distinction between “heresy” and “damnable heresy,” even if that line may be hard for us to draw at times.
I have read these postings with great interest.
I would like to point out that I am a big believer in Sovereign Grace when it comes to salvation. I am a monergist. But I do not think it appropriate to label synergists as heretics.
Horton writes from a thoroughly Reformed viewpoint. Although I agree with much of the Reformed position on salvation, I do not consider myself Reformed. I suspect Horton would say I am way off base, too, for other reasons.
I agree that regeneration comes before faith, logically. God brings us to life by His grace. But the Bible does present regeneration as both man’s responsibility and God’s doing. For example, Jesus comes close to commanding Nicodemus to be born again. Some people do not want to hear this, and, if nothing else, Finney makes the point.
This dual human/divine cause for regeneration is in the Torah as well. The OT term for regeneration is “circumcision of the heart.”
In Deuteronomy 10:16, God says, “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.”
In Deuteronomy 30:6 God says, “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.”
This is another instance of that old paradox we struggle with: God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility (I prefer the term over “free will”).
An Arminian who believes that Jesus atoned for His sin on the cross (whether by paying the equivalent penalty or some lesser penalty that satisfied divine justice) may be off on some things, but not a heretic.
We usually save the term hersey for errors that are so crucial they significantly distort the Gospel and essential teachings. We are better to refer to errors affecting “important but not absolutely crucial” matters as simply errors, or significant errors.
If Finney advocated the “moral influence theory” alone (as Horton suggests), he would certainly be a heretic. If he emphasized the moral influence theory but also acknowledged even a somewhat diluted version of the penal atonement, IMO he would not be a heretic.
I personally do not favor the revival version of Christianity that developed from Finney. but that is not the same thing as saying revivalists are heretics. I would say, rather, that their theology is off in some important areas.
So I am waiting to see where this discussion goes. Thanks to those of you doing the research!
"The Midrash Detective"
Ed wrote:
An Arminian who believes that Jesus atoned for His sin on the cross (whether by paying the equivalent penalty or some lesser penalty that satisfied divine justice) may be off on some things, but not a heretic.
I certainly agree. Many people who use the term “Arminian,” either in a positive or pejorative way, often don’t understand what it actually means. They should read Olson’s book. But, my issue with Finney isn’t some alleged “Arminianism.”
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Finney drives a hard wedge between “physical depravity” and “moral depravity.” He defines the former thus (Systematic, Lecture 22.2):
Physical depravity, as the word denotes, is the depravity of constitution, or substance, as distinguished from depravity of free moral action. It may be predicated of body or of mind. Physical depravity, when predicated of the body, is commonly and rightly called disease. It consists in a physical departure from the laws of health; a lapsed, or fallen state, in which healthy organic action is not sustained.
When physical depravity is predicated of mind, it is intended that the powers of the mind, either in substance, or in consequence of their connection with, and dependence upon, the body, are in a diseased, lapsed, fallen, degenerate state, so that the healthy action of those powers is not sustained.
Physical depravity, being depravity of substance as opposed to depravity of the actions of free-will, can have no moral character. It may as we shall see, be caused by moral depravity; and a moral agent may be blameworthy for having rendered himself physically depraved, either in body or mind. But physical depravity, whether of body or of mind, can have no moral character in itself, for the plain reason that it is involuntary, and in its nature is disease, and not sin. Let this be remembered.
On a basic level, Finney believed the “status” of “sinner” carried no moral weight. It is well recognized that “sin” has three basic meanings; it can be (1) a status or state of being, (2) an action, or (3) a thought contrary to God’s law. However, Finney only assigned moral character to actions. “Depravity of the will, as a faculty, is, or would be, physical, and not moral depravity,” (Systematic, Lecture 22.2). Think very hard about this.
Finney then went on to argue against the Reformed position that human nature is inherently sinful (Systematic, Lecture 22.8ff; Lecture 29). In fact, he seems to suggest Adam and Eve were constitutionally exactly the same as we are today - this is likely why he has always been tarred with the Pelagian brush (Systematic, Lecture 29):
The theologians whose views we are canvassing, maintain that the appetites, passions, desires, and propensities, which are constitutional and entirely involuntary, are in themselves sinful. To this I reply, that Adam and Eve possessed them before they fell. Christ possessed them, or he was not a man, nor, in any proper sense, a human being. No, these appetites, passions, and propensities, are not sinful, though they are the occasions of sin. They are a temptation to the will to seek their unlawful indulgence.
Finney then made this startling declaration (Systematic, Lecture 29):
What ground is there for the assertion that Adam’s nature became in itself sinful by the fall? This is a groundless, not to say ridiculous, assumption, and an absurdity.
Pelagian. He went on to argue that, if the Reformed (i,.e. Biblical idea) of original sin were actually true, then men couldn’t logically be held responsible for their “sinful” actions at all (Systematic, Lecture 29):
For in fact, if this doctrine is true, he is not to blame for being a sinner, any more than he is to blame for being a human being. This the advocate of this doctrine must know. It is vain for him to set up the pretence that he truly blames sinners for their nature, or for their conduct that was unavoidable. He can no more do it, than he can honestly deny the necessary affirmations of his own reason. Therefore the advocates of this theory must merely hold it as a theory, without believing it, or otherwise they must in their secret conviction excuse the sinner.
And, to top it all off, I leave you with this (Systematic, Lecture 29, Remarks, #7):
The dogma of constitutional moral depravity, is a part and parcel of the doctrine of a necessitated will. It is a branch of a grossly false and heathenish philosophy. How infinitely absurd, dangerous, and unjust, then, to embody it in a standard of Christian doctrine, to give it the place of an indispensable article of faith, and denounce all who will not swallow its absurdities, as heretics!
I’ve had enough of Chuck Finney. The guy was a Pelagian heretic - read his systematic. As for me … I’m gettin’ off that train. I suggest you do the same.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I’m getting off as well Tyler. I’ll buy the coffee while we’re waiting for our rides home.
I didn’t know who Finney was until I was assigned to write an article on the Brownsville Revival in Florida and revivalism in 1998 for a decidedly anti-Calvinist pastor and editor. After my research I came to the conclusion that I had just met my first Pelagian. The article got published and I got some interesting mail.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I have this book. Robert’s father is a member of our church, and Dr. Caldwell visits us every Summer with his family. He sent me a complimentary copy of this book when it was published last year. I’ve read about half, but laid it aside. I consider the portion I’ve already read to be very accurate and helpful. I’ll dig it out to read the section on Finney. Thanks, David, for the reminder.
G. N. Barkman
With David’s prompting, I have just completed about half of Caldwell’s chapter on Finney Dr. Caldwell is a gracious man who bends over backwards to treat Finney as kindly as possible. Nevertheless, he clearly documents several of Finney’s serious doctrinal errors. Read it for yourself, and I believe you will become convinced that Finney’s theology is outside the pale of Biblical soteriology.
G. N. Barkman
Was Finney a Pelagian? Some say yes, some no.
“This heretical view [Pelagianism] , propounded by Pelagius in the fifth century, held that there was no such thing as original sin; people have perfect free will and therefore no absolute need of God’s grace. The Pelagian system finally implied that humans are virtually the authors of their own salvation. This was a serious charge and unjustified against Finney. But he was obviously camped on the other side of the fence from the ‘old school.’ Along with Nathaniel W. Taylor, he took seriously the issue of human responsibility.” -Lewis A. Drummond, The Life and Ministry of Charles G. Finney.
“Regeneration is always induced and effected by the personal agency of the Holy Spirit.” -Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology. (Primary Source)
David R. Brumbelow
Are you really going to ignore my discussion from Finney’s systematic, above? This is too much. I documented his heresy, and it only took me 10 minutes of reading to do itl The man was a Pelagian heretic. Read my post, go to the link, and read his discussion about moral depravity from Lectures 28-29. Surely you need to respond to this evidence, David. Anything less is ridiculous.
You’re better than this, David.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Tyler,
Would a Pelagian say, “Regeneration is always induced and effected by the personal agency of the Holy Spirit.” -Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology?
However, I and others, have already said Finney had some wrong doctrine, and some unique ways of expressing some doctrine. But it doesn’t rise to the level of Pelagianism and Heresy. Again, many critics seize on one half of Finney’s explanations, and ignore the other half.
You asked me. Have you read, entirely, Finney’s Systematic Theology?
David R. Brumbelow
As I recall, Pelagius thought that some people never sinned, and that he was one of them. I don’t know that Finney held this view. Maybe he did, but nothing I have read so far indicates that. It sounds more academic: all men are sinners because they have sinned vs. being born a sinner. How far sin’s effect penetrates is also a point of disagreement. Wesley gets to a similar point via “Prevenient Grace,” putting people (because of Christ’s death) where Finney puts them, totally free-willed and back at zero rather than impossibly below.
What is particularly insidious about Finney is his rationalism. He places human reason above God’s Word. It is surprising that he believed in the Trinity, really. No wonder his followers eventually became out and out liberals.
This spirit of rationalizing is nothing new and goes back way before Finney. It actually goes back to Eden.
"The Midrash Detective"
Ed,
I understand your point. I would point out that Finney said about Scripture:
“The question of the inspiration of the Bible is one of the highest importance to the church and the world…Those who have called in question the plenary inspiration of the Bible have, sooner or later, fritted away nearly all that is essential to the Christian religion.” -Charles G. Finney, Theological Lectures
Finney was a lawyer, and argued his case in that way, but appealing to Scripture. Spurgeon somewhat alluded to this about Finney.
David R. Brumbelow
[David R. Brumbelow] Finney had some wrong doctrine, and some unique ways of expressing some doctrine. But it doesn’t rise to the level of Pelagianism and Heresy.When someone formulates an important doctrine in a unique way, that makes warning signs start to flash in my mind. Either the person is untrained or he has to intentionally use awkward phraseology to hide his theological error. We saw this in my SS class this past Sunday as we were talking about justification by faith alone and looked at how that doctrine was framed in the ECT documents.
I sort of wonder what kind of doctrinal error would lead you to agree that a person was Pelagian or a heretic. What must a person get wrong concerning the doctrine of the atonement or justification? Can a person deny substitutionary atonement? Christ’s imputed righteousness? Original sin? Satisfying the just wrath of God via propitiation?
No; I’ve read his soteriology. That was frightening enough. The man man refused to assign moral value to wicked thoughts and actions; he called it an involuntary disease, and not sin. He thought Adam and Eve were made this way; with a diseased nature that wasn’t sinful in and of itself - he located morality in actions motivated by selfishness. But, he refused to admit man’s moral character was sinful. He thought Christ was created this way, with a diseased nature from which sprang impulses that, if acted upon, would be sin. But, he didn’t act, so he was “sinless.”
You don’t think this is heresy? Anthropology and Christology fail, right there! This is blasphemy. This is all in the excerpts I provided, above, as I briefly walked though Lectures 28-29 in sequence. He specifically repudiated the biblical doctrine of original sin, in my last quote (above):
The dogma of constitutional moral depravity, is a part and parcel of the doctrine of a necessitated will. It is a branch of a grossly false and heathenish philosophy. How infinitely absurd, dangerous, and unjust, then, to embody it in a standard of Christian doctrine, to give it the place of an indispensable article of faith, and denounce all who will not swallow its absurdities, as heretics!
This is why Chuck was a Pelagian; because his writings show he believed man was diseased, and not morally corrupt to the core in an intrinsic sense. He believed our constitutional natures were identical to Adam and Eve’s, and to Christ’s. He rationalized this by claiming moral value is only assigned to actions.
I am astonished at you, David. Why will you defend this heretic? How can you read Lectures 28-29, and not be outraged? If you have his books, burn them - lest someone else find them and be led astray.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I would like to make two points.
First, David, I would say that affirming the inspiration of Scripture does not mean one does not rationalize. Trent affirmed the Scriptures. Early on, Bell and McClaren did, too. Jehovah Witnesses claim to believe the Bible. So do 7th Day Adventists and Church of Christ people. The claim is one thing, letting Scripture set the agenda and trump human logic (or agendas) is another.
You can take any fundamental belief we embrace, and yet find people who agree with us on the inspiration but deny every other fundamental, one group this one, another group that one or two.
I think none of us would surrender our pulpit to Finney. But C.S. Lewis would probably not be welcome to teach in many of our churches, either.
Second, Tyler, I get where you are coming from, but when it comes to the Gospel itself, the important issue is that people are lost in sin and lost apart from Christ. What parts of their being are affected by sin or how we came to be sinners is important, but not as crucial as the idea that we ARE sinners in need of redemption.
Reading the quotations from Finney, it seems like some of it, at least, is semantics. We talk about the fact that Jesus, in His humanity, was tempted to sin like we. Finney is taking the concept of being tempted and defining it as an involuntary disease. I think his terminology is confusing and doesn’t help matters.
Unless Finney denies that all are sinners and in need of salvation, and if he denies that Jesus’ death somehow satisfied God’s justice and that salvation comes by repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, I would think that many could have been genuinely saved by his ministry. But it seems unclear or possible that he did deny these things, with quotations from both directions. Maybe he contradicted himself?
But even if he does not qualify as a heretic, is his doctrine in general acceptable? No way. Should he be a model for us? No. He might be a man God used DESPITE his bad doctrine and manipulative techniques, or he might have been a false teacher producing false converts. I cannot be a qualified judge, but I tend to lean toward the former.
"The Midrash Detective"
Discussion