Jump to content

Talk:Charles Grandison Finney

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Charles Finney)

Balance often missing

[edit]

I know this page is dated, but i just came across it, and would add that it seems criticism of Finney, while warranted as regards doctrine, tends to lack objectivity and to make some extreme claims.

I did some research, and I think his calling was evangelism, not theology, as he was wrong in aspects of the latter, but his preaching called convicted sinners to repent and avail themselves of the mercy of God in Christ - while they could.

Finney (who, incidentally, was the youngest of fifteen children!), rejected substitionary atonement, that Christ paid for our sins, so that justice which demanded its punishment was satisfied and so we are still not worthy of death, and so that Christ now no longer appeals to mercy, but demands justice (acquittal) for us. Instead, and, with a legal mind, he saw Jesus honoring the law by His suffering, so that He could plead for our forgiveness as an act of God's mercy. I see Jesus paying the price for our forgiveness by satisfying the demand of the law for that, which required a scapegoat and sin offerng, (Lv. 16; Is. 53), though He did not have to experience the sentence due to each sinner because of their sins. (Rv. 20:12)

He taught in JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH, that "sinners are not justified by having the obedience of Jesus Christ set down to their account, as if he had obeyed the law for them, or in their stead." And that Paul in Rm. 4 was only denying "that works of law, or works grounded on legal motives, have any thing to do in the matter of justification." But "that men are justified, not by works nor by faith alone, but by faith together with the works of faith."

(More hold that we are saved by a faith that will and does overall follow Christ, and repents when convicted of not doing so, but works, including works of faith - and which includes a "sinner's prayer" - do not merit salvation, but it is God-given faith which is imputed for righteousness.)

Finney also seemed to deny constitutional depravity inherited from Adam, though not human sinfulness, as he could not reconcile God commanding men to obey Him if they did not have the ability to do so. And he stated that moral depravity "is not a constitutional sinfulness. It is not an involuntary sinfulness. Moral depravity, as I use the term, consists in selfishness; in a state of voluntary committal of the will to self-gratification." This is interpreted by his adversaries as teaching Pelagianism, which in part, is an "understanding of the gifts of grace that excludes, or at best drastically minimizes, that enabling power" of the Holy Spirit. That repentance and sanctification is done without "the additional assistance of His co-operation and inspiration of love, that he [the soul] may accomplish that which he had discovered it to be his duty to do." And so the sources states, "According to Finney, the human will is capable of obeying all of God’s commands aside from any work of grace other than the Holy Spirit’s work in convincing the human mind of the truth of the Gospel."

However, Finney's theology, while having errors, has been found to be difficult to classify, and often misrepresented it seems, or one-sidely so, and is expressed in other texts which needs to be considered. In "THANKS FOR GOSPEL VICTORY" 1856, he plainly states that "The Bible everywhere teaches and facts prove that unconverted men are morally and spiritually dead...

In Romans vii, Paul describes a state in which there is the greatest effort to get rid of this state of sinfulness. There he cries out, "O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from this body of sin and death?" Then, the gospel opening on his anxious eye, he thanks God for deliverance through Jesus Christ. He saw the remedy.

This remedy is never in ourselves. Nowhere in the wide range of the material system all round us, can it be found;--nowhere outside of God. It might be demonstrated that in our own nature there is no efficacious remedy. Yet by this I do not mean to say that if any man would use his powers right, he could gain no relief; but I do mean to say that, apart from God, he never will use his own powers right for this end. His own will is committed in an opposite direction. He has fallen into the slough of his corrupt propensities...

Yet they do not usually quite despair of help in themselves; do not cease from legal efforts; are not dead to this class of efforts, as those who have utterly renounced them, and who trust in Christ alone. They still think they shall gain the victory by some work which they shall do in themselves. By efforts made without faith, they hope to get faith, and so work out their own righteousness. But it is only when self is really despaired of that deliverance comes. When you see a sinner on the verge of despair in himself, then you may know he is near the kingdom of grace and mercy. When he has done everything he can do in himself, to save himself, and is compelled to despair of doing anything more, then he is ready to trust in Jesus. "

And he states in SANCTIFICATION BY FAITH (1837), "Suppose salvation was not altogether gratuitous, but that some degree of good works was taken into the account, and for those good works in part we were justified--just so far as this consideration is in the mind, just so far there is a stimulus to selfishness. You must bring the sinner to see that he is entirely dependent on free grace, and that a full and complete justification is bestowed, on the first act of faith, as a mere gratuity, and no part of it as an equivalent for any thing he is to do.

They should be made to see the law, and their own guilt, and that they have no way to save themselves; and then, the more fully the whole length and breadth and height and depth of the love of God should be opened, the more effectually will you crush his selfishness, and subdue his soul in love to God.

In WAY TO BE HOLY(1843), he writes, "The way to be holy, then, is to believe. 'Then said they unto Him, what shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus said unto them, this is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent.That they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.This only would I learn of you; received ye the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye made perfect by the flesh?"

Finney also condemned "teach[ing] that a man can have saving faith without being turned from sin, without forsaking all or even any of his iniquities! Horrible! HORRIBLE! There never was a worse error taught by men or devils! I would as soon rebuke a man for this as for downright atheism. There is not a truth in the moral universe more palpable and certain than that saving faith must imply holiness."

Critics also charge him with denying that revival was a supernatural work of God, as he did say revival was not that not a miracle, or dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means--as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means.” (Lectures on Revivals of Religion; WHAT A REVIVAL OF RELIGION IS)

But it would be wrong to suppose this meant that his "right use of constituted means" meant a mere formula, rather than expecting God to bless obedience to His commands, with promised supernatural assistance, versus fatalistically rendering to be something human passively entered into.

And it is evident that what Finney was reacting against was the idea that God arbitrarily sending revival apart from anything man did in obedience to Him, an defining sovereignty as "an arbitrary disposal of events, and particularly of the gift of his Spirit, as precluded a rational employment of means for promoting a revival of religion," with its adherents protesting to Finney, "You are trying to get up a revival in your own strength. Take care, you are interfering with the sovereignty of God. Better keep along in the usual course, and let God give a revival when he thinks it is best."

That is was the "idea prevalent that promoting religion has something very peculiar in it, not to be judged of by the ordinary rules of cause and effect; in short, that there is no connection of the means with the result, and no tendency in the means to produce the effect. No doctrine is more dangerous than this to the prosperity of the church, and nothing more absurd.

Suppose a man were to go and preach this doctrine among farmers, about their sowing grain. Let him tell them that God is a sovereign, and will give them a crop only when it pleases him, and that for them to plow and plant and labor as if they expected to raise a crop is very wrong, and taking the work out of the hands of God, that it interferes with his sovereignty, and is going on in their own strength: and that there is no connection between the means and the result on which they can depend. And now, suppose the farmers should believe such doctrine. Why, they would starve the world to death.

Just such results will follow from the church's being persuaded that promoting religion is somehow so mysteriously a subject of Divine sovereignty, that there is no natural connection between the means and the end. What are the results? Why, generation after generation has gone down to hell. No doubt more than five thousand millions have gone down to hell, while the church has been dreaming, and waiting for God to save them without the use of means. It has been the devil's most successful means of destroying souls."

And while Finney denies that revival itself is a miracle, as being contrary to God's established laws nature, what critics fail to state is that he also proceeds to clearly teach that it is utterly dependent upon God's Providence and His Spirit, from arranging weather and "events as to bring the sinner's mind and the truth in contact," to the power of the Holy Spirit convicting souls, employing gospel "truth which is best adapted to his particular case, and then sets it home with Divine power."

Finney condemned as "mere atheism" the idea that "every thing goes to show that God has connected means with the end through all the departments of his government--in nature and in grace. There is no natural event in which his own agency is not concerned. He has not built the creation like a vast machine that will go on alone without his further care. He has not retired from the universe, to let it work for itself."

Thus far from excluding the supernatural of God, Finney affirms such, while restricting "miracle" to be something God arbitrarily did apart from what man might do. What Finney seems to lack was that of God initiating man's seeking, while the dichotomy between man's responsibility and God sovereignty can be hard to reconcile.Daniel1212 (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Social History is totally muddled

[edit]

The Jehovah's Witnesses and B. B. Warfield are from the later part of the 19th century, and it makes no sense to mention them in connection with Finney. I've altered the section to reflect more relevant references. Atterlep (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

253vdhvd636

[edit]

why did you die you tried to help us alot but i dont tink it realy worked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.123.46 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

opening paragraph

[edit]
I take issue with this line in the introduction----"development of the "anxious seat", which is unbiblical".

Unbiblical give the idea that it is unorthodox or out of line with the biblical teachings. In any event there should be a citation to back up that opinion. Jesus certainly put people in the "anxious seat", like when he asked his desciples "who do men say that I am...But who do you say that I am" Simclardy (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)sim[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

I'm rather surprised how much vandalism this page attracts... Is there something about the page that's making it a target? czar 01:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Charles Grandison Finney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Random quote?

[edit]

There is a random quote towards the end of the article, taking up an entire paragraph, oddly attributed to Finney both at the beginning and the end, and totally without context:

'Quoting Finney: "The impression of many seems to be, that grace will pardon what it cannot prevent; in other words, that if the grace of the Gospel fails to save people from the commission of sin in this life; it will nevertheless pardon them and save them in sin, if it cannot save them from sin. Now, really, I understand the Gospel as teaching that men are saved from sin first, and as a consequence, from hell; and not that they are saved from hell while they are not saved from sin. Christ sanctifies when he saves. And this is the very first element or idea of salvation, saving from sin. 'Thou shall call his name Jesus," said the angel, 'for he shall save his people from their sins.' 'Having raised up his Son Jesus,' says the apostle, 'he hath sent him to bless you in turning every one of you from his iniquities.' Let no one expect to saved from hell, unless the grace of the Gospel saves him first from sin.' " –Charles Finney[16]'

It's a large chunk of text, and out of context I don't really understand what it means. Is it meant to illustrate the aforementioned quandary over the doctrine of "Perseverance of the saints?" Or is it about Christian perfectionism? Either way, it would help to signpost the context, format it properly, and preferably shorten it. Sadiemonster (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Grandison Finney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

mixed up

[edit]

This article states: "Finney's understanding of substitutionary atonement was that it satisfied "public justice" and that it opened the way for God to pardon people of their sins. This was part of the theology of the so-called New Divinity, which was popular at that time period. In this view, Christ's death satisfied public justice rather than retributive justice. As Finney wrote, it was not a "commercial transaction." This view of the atonement is typically known as the governmental view or government view."

This appears to me to be mixed up. The New Divinity did not believe in "substitutionary atonement." Exactly the opposite. Read your own article on it. The point of The New Divinity was that mankind should be willing to be damned if God wills it. Jesus death fulfilled that criterion and no more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.145.174 (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Charles Grandison Finney

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Charles Grandison Finney's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Fletcher":

  • From Oneida Institute: Fletcher, Robert Samuel (1943). History of Oberlin College from its foundation through the Civil War. Oberlin College.
  • From Theodore Dwight Weld: Fletcher, Robert Samuel (1943). History of Oberlin College from its foundation through the Civil War. Oberlin College.
  • From John Monteith (minister): Robert Samuel Fletcher, A History of Oberlin College from Its Foundation, Oberlin College, 1943
  • From Lane Theological Seminary: Fletcher, Robert Samuel (1943). A history of Oberlin College from its foundation through the civil war. Oberlin College. OCLC 189886.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Grandison_Finney&oldid=1194084822"