Is revival a miraculous work of God or an enterprise of human ingenuity? In this brief clip, W. Robert Godfrey examines how …
20 COMMENTS
Finney was a Pelagian heretic denied penal substitutionary atonement, imputation, original sin. He relied on man's power to bring people to Christ and not God.
In John chapter 9 the story of the blind man who was healed is an interesting study the attitudes of those Pharisee theologians. The blind man responded to the Pharisees without any Calvinist training. I'm not an American but Charles Finney's books and his testimony and brilliant exposition really helped yours truly. That's for 40 years. The holiness of God! Why don't you guys preach the Gospel instead of criticising others whom the Lord empowers? Spiritual viruses can be lethal too! But "love covers a multitude of sins"
Finney was not only unsound theological, he was also a segregationist and did not allow African-Americans in leadership. In that way (racism) he a lot in common with George Whitfield, Johnathan Edwards, George Mueller, the Puritans, and many of your heroes.
Please stop speaking about these racist white men as good, godly men, or as the gold standard. By doing so, by ignoring this huge part of their true history you are showing your own racism.
Finney’s understanding of Scripture seems to fit well with those in the last 100 years who claim church growth and indeed, individual growth can be acquired if you only develop and follow the “right” program.
The history of Charles Finney is very interesting. His greatest revival was right here in my hometown of Rochester, NY. in the early 1800's. From a human perspective it would seem he was a great success; a very charismatic preacher that mentioned hell and judgment and the need to repent and believe in Christ. On the surface you hear this and it would seem there was nothing wrong. However, Finney's actual understanding of core doctrines seem to call into question his true understanding of salvation. Though he mentioned sin, I'm unsure he understand the total depravity of it (Romans 3:9-20, Ephesians 2:1-3, Jeremiah 17:9, 1 John 3:4, etc.) to the point where he thought pragmatism was the way to go. He also didn't think revival was supernatural, but man-initiated, basically not believing the gospel was the power of God (Romans 1:16), but his own persuasive words.
Finney didn't invent the altar call methods of today, but he certainly was the grand promoter of it in such a way that many of his methods are still popular today. If I'm not mistaken, even Finney himself would come back to some of the places he had "revivals" and find none of the "decisions" stuck. Because of his outward "success," Finney is hailed as the greatest evangelist of his time, but it isn't about the evangelist or the "decisions," it's about God saving a soul supernaturally through the preaching of the gospel. Finney's methods, at the end of the day, seem to contradict the Apostle Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 2:1-2.
According to Finney's own words, he did not believe in the Substitutionary Atonement. He claimed that no one else can die for his sins. You can read his views in Finney's Systematic Theology. Because he was simply an itinerant preacher, his audience was not familiar with his doctrinal views–they just assumed that he was a Christian.
So this is what Students of “Reformed” theology are taught in their lectures. Complete misrepresentation of Finney’s veiws.
My only comment to those trying to call out Finney on his imperfections is Mathew 7:3-5
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
First consider the dangers of your own doctrines and then take a look at the impact that you are NOT having on a lost world.
Iv"e read a lot of Finney and he not one to bank your salvation own , this man knows nothing of his theology , he was a works based salvation of Atonement , it's called Finney's theology , but it" not Gods Theology . It's condemning .
It seems that Finney was a pragmatist heavily influenced by the culture. I, however, am in agreement with Calvin in that revival is the work of the Holy Spirit and not of man.
This is NOT a correct interpretation of Finny. Finny had prayer before conducting revivals. He waited upon God’s Holy Spirit t prepare the ground – the hearts of people – before he would go share the Gospel. Read Finny’s autobiography yourself. He often attacked because he was not a Calvinist. Very disappointing when people criticize and diminish the moving of God’s Spirit to bring about a revival and the winning of souls. Think about it – John the Baptist was not Ezra. Nehemiah was not Elijah. The Apostle Paul was not a Phillip. None of them were a Calvinist. God is His own Author. He will use every vessel He chooses according to His plan and His will for His glory. So God used Finny. What is really important? Praise God and give less attention to Finny. THOUSANDS of lives were reached and gloriously saved by proclaiming the Gospel for Christ Jesus.. That IS supernatural – even Finny says so. A man of deep prayer.
Yes l will agree mr nash and others were key to the power of Holy Spirit out pouring in these revivals…. There were other important keys that were instrumental When Finney put the emphasis on the individual for his sin and which through the power of Holy Spirit brought deep conviction and deep repentance which was followed up with a Baptism of the Holy Spirit this brought a total transformation which lasted in many who received this..! Prayer is so important but also the real truth must be preached…
Finney refused: the imputation of Christs rightousness to the sinner, saved by faiht alone, that Christs atonement actually bought and secured the salvation of people and said that you need to be obidient to be rightous. Instead of the reformed tradition who says that our justification by faith through Christ is the base for any sanctification, Finney swipt the table around and made the doctrine that you need a certain degree of holiness and obedience to become rightous. Furthermire, he denied original sin and said that this is a dammaging doctrine not understandable fr the human mind…. He is a pelagain. He is a heretic!
Finney was a Pelagian heretic denied penal substitutionary atonement, imputation, original sin. He relied on man's power to bring people to Christ and not God.
Read more in detail in the link below.
https://www.monergism.com/disturbing-legacy-charles-finney
In John chapter 9 the story of the blind man who was healed is an interesting study the attitudes of those Pharisee theologians.
The blind man responded to the Pharisees without any Calvinist training. I'm not an American but Charles Finney's books and his testimony and brilliant exposition really helped yours truly. That's for 40 years.
The holiness of God!
Why don't you guys preach the Gospel instead of criticising others whom the Lord empowers? Spiritual viruses can be lethal too! But "love covers a multitude of sins"
I disagree
Finney was not only unsound theological, he was also a segregationist and did not allow African-Americans in leadership. In that way (racism) he a lot in common with George Whitfield, Johnathan Edwards, George Mueller, the Puritans, and many of your heroes.
Please stop speaking about these racist white men as good, godly men, or as the gold standard. By doing so, by ignoring this huge part of their true history you are showing your own racism.
Finney’s understanding of Scripture seems to fit well with those in the last 100 years who claim church growth and indeed, individual growth can be acquired if you only develop and follow the “right” program.
The full lecture is better
The history of Charles Finney is very interesting. His greatest revival was right here in my hometown of Rochester, NY. in the early 1800's. From a human perspective it would seem he was a great success; a very charismatic preacher that mentioned hell and judgment and the need to repent and believe in Christ. On the surface you hear this and it would seem there was nothing wrong. However, Finney's actual understanding of core doctrines seem to call into question his true understanding of salvation. Though he mentioned sin, I'm unsure he understand the total depravity of it (Romans 3:9-20, Ephesians 2:1-3, Jeremiah 17:9, 1 John 3:4, etc.) to the point where he thought pragmatism was the way to go. He also didn't think revival was supernatural, but man-initiated, basically not believing the gospel was the power of God (Romans 1:16), but his own persuasive words.
Finney didn't invent the altar call methods of today, but he certainly was the grand promoter of it in such a way that many of his methods are still popular today. If I'm not mistaken, even Finney himself would come back to some of the places he had "revivals" and find none of the "decisions" stuck. Because of his outward "success," Finney is hailed as the greatest evangelist of his time, but it isn't about the evangelist or the "decisions," it's about God saving a soul supernaturally through the preaching of the gospel. Finney's methods, at the end of the day, seem to contradict the Apostle Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 2:1-2.
This is a complete misrepresentation of Evangelist Charles Finney, who he was, and what he believed.
According to Finney's own words, he did not believe in the Substitutionary Atonement. He claimed that no one else can die for his sins. You can read his views in Finney's Systematic Theology. Because he was simply an itinerant preacher, his audience was not familiar with his doctrinal views–they just assumed that he was a Christian.
Do Presbyterians claim Billy Sunday? And was he a Calvinist?
So this is what Students of “Reformed” theology are taught in their lectures. Complete misrepresentation of Finney’s veiws.
My only comment to those trying to call out Finney on his imperfections is Mathew 7:3-5
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
First consider the dangers of your own doctrines and then take a look at the impact that you are NOT having on a lost world.
Iv"e read a lot of Finney and he not one to bank your salvation own , this man knows nothing of his theology , he was a works based
salvation of Atonement , it's called Finney's theology , but it" not Gods Theology . It's condemning .
It seems that Finney was a pragmatist heavily influenced by the culture. I, however, am in agreement with Calvin in that revival is the work of the Holy Spirit and not of man.
This is NOT a correct interpretation of Finny. Finny had prayer before conducting revivals. He waited upon God’s Holy Spirit t prepare the ground – the hearts of people – before he would go share the Gospel. Read Finny’s autobiography yourself. He often attacked because he was not a Calvinist. Very disappointing when people criticize and diminish the moving of God’s Spirit to bring about a revival and the winning of souls. Think about it – John the Baptist was not Ezra. Nehemiah was not Elijah. The Apostle Paul was not a Phillip. None of them were a Calvinist. God is His own Author. He will use every vessel He chooses according to His plan and His will for His glory. So God used Finny. What is really important? Praise God and give less attention to Finny. THOUSANDS of lives were reached and gloriously saved by proclaiming the Gospel for Christ Jesus.. That IS supernatural – even Finny says so. A man of deep prayer.
Yes l will agree mr nash and others were key to the power of Holy Spirit out pouring in these revivals….
There were other important keys that were instrumental
When Finney put the emphasis on the individual for his sin and which through the power of Holy Spirit brought deep conviction and deep repentance which was followed up with a Baptism of the Holy Spirit this brought a total transformation which lasted in many who received this..!
Prayer is so important but also the real truth must be preached…
Question is : Was it God with Finney in that revival or not?
You should read BB Warfield on Perfectionism.
Finney refused:
the imputation of Christs rightousness to the sinner, saved by faiht alone, that Christs atonement actually bought and secured the salvation of people
and said that you need to be obidient to be rightous. Instead of the reformed tradition who says that our justification by faith through Christ is the base for any sanctification, Finney swipt the table around and made the doctrine that you need a certain degree of holiness and obedience to become rightous. Furthermire, he denied original sin and said that this is a dammaging doctrine not understandable fr the human mind….
He is a pelagain. He is a heretic!
Not 'turned around' but made 'spiritually' alive. Naught else.
I'm related to him very interesting