Charles Finney: hero or heretic?

[Ruminator]

i'm a Lutheran....i don't like Finney because his teachings were heretical (any basic research and actual reading of Finney's writings reveals it).
but to each their own.

Finney himself:
I was often instrumental in bringing Christians under great conviction, and into a state of temporary repentance and faith . . . . [But] falling short of urging them up to a point, where they would become so acquainted with Christ as to abide in Him, they would of course soon relapse into their former state [cited in B. B. Warfield, Studies in Perfectionism, 2 vols. (New York: Oxford, 1932), 2:24].

Lutherans don't have that problem because they never bring about conviction of sin in the first place! Now, Jesus seemed to have the identical problem, didn't he? See the parable of the sower.

Of course, Finney was pointing out a problem with his earlier preaching, which the Warfield quote cuts short.

[zone]

Again, you don't understand what you cite. These are out of context or the words of people who don't understand. But you posted a lot... please pick what you consider *the most damning* of his writing and I'll help you understand it properly and you will see it is quite insightful.

i've read his Systematic Theology. i know exactly what i'm citing.

use his writings (if you like) to post what you approve of.
what do you mean they don't understand?

i guess Finney's denial of Substitutionary Atonement might be one point to examine....

i reject his doctrine. if you like it, that's allowed isn't it?

[Ruminator]

the post was about heretical doctrine. Paul said there was such a thing.

Titus 3:10
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

That is a mis-translation. The verse you cite was not referring to teachings but rather to "denominating". Titus 3 refers to "a person who is a member of a denomination".

[zone]

Lutherans don't have that problem because they never bring about conviction of sin in the first place! .

LOL.
if you say so.

Now, Jesus seemed to have the identical problem, didn't he? See the parable of the sower.

um....ok.

Of course, Finney was pointing out a problem with his earlier preaching, which the Warfield quote cuts short.

Finney left preaching and went back to Law.
he was a total failure and he admitted it.

[zone]

That is a mis-translation. The verse you cite was not referring to teachings but rather to "denominating". Titus 3 refers to "a person who is a member of a denomination".

i see.
so, schismatics do what exactly?
split the church on doctrinal issues.
so, its about false doctrine.
does false doctrine matter?

not referring to teachings? you sure about that?

[Ruminator]

i've read his Systematic Theology. i know exactly what i'm citing.

use his writings (if you like) to post what you approve of.
what do you mean they don't understand?

i guess Finney's denial of Substitutionary Atonement might be one point to examine....

i reject his doctrine. if you like it, that's allowed isn't it?

How much of the Systematic Theology did you read?

This is what you find the most damning?:

It 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 [Systematic Theology, 373].

This is absolutely correct. What he says is completely consistent with scripture.

Here's the context:

2. I must show that the atonement was not a commercial transaction.
Some have regarded the atonement simply in the light of the payment of a debt; and
have represented Christ as purchasing the elect of the Father, and paying down the
same amount of suffering in his own person that justice would have exacted of them.
To this I answer--
(1.) It is naturally impossible, as it would require that satisfaction should be made to
retributive justice. Strictly speaking, retributive justice can never be satisfied, in the
sense that the guilty can be punished as much and as long as he deserves; for this would
imply that he was punished until he ceased to be guilty, or became innocent. When law
is once violated, the sinner can make no satisfaction. He can never cease to be guilty, or
to deserve punishment, and no possible amount of suffering renders him the less guilty
or the less deserving of punishment; therefore, to satisfy retributive justice is impossible.
(2.) But, as we have seen in a former lecture, retributive justice must have inflicted
on him eternal death. To suppose, therefore, that Christ suffered in amount, all that was
due to the elect, is to suppose that he suffered an eternal punishment multiplied by the
whole number of the elect.

http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Book...s%20Finney.pdf Page 351

The Calvinist "Substitutionary Atonement" is at odds with the explicit principle of justice:

Eze_18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

It also is silly. How is God requited by the death of his son? To whom is the payment made?

[Ruminator]

i see.
so, schismatics do what exactly?
split the church on doctrinal issues.
so, its about false doctrine.
does false doctrine matter?

not referring to teachings? you sure about that?

Paul explained to the Corinthians that "perfect knowledge" was an unattainable goal for this life, and that not everyone had to always agree on everything. This was his "better approach" to handling differences of opinion. The "bad approach" to differences was what he called "carnal" and damning.

The whole Catholic, Protestant, JW, Mormon, etc approach is the carnal approach of the Corinthians... the practice of creating sects with teachers with credentials from a human "head" quarters, etc.

[Revmitchell]

How is God requited by the death of his son? To whom is the payment made?

It was made to Him.

[zone]

How much of the Systematic Theology did you read?

much.

This is what you find the most damning?

no...there's quite a bit more that's unbiblical.

This is absolutely correct. What he says is completely consistent with scripture.

so Jesus didn't bear the penalty for your sin on Calvary?
His Death was not a propititation (appeasement) of God's wrath which was resting upon you?

was God's wrath abiding on you at all? what for?

The Calvinist "Substitutionary Atonement" is at odds with the explicit principle of justice

well, can we leave Calvinism out of it? i'm not a Calvinist either.

could we examine Finney and scripture?

in your own words, what is "the explicit principle of justice"?

just so i'm clear: you reject Penal Substitutionary Atonement? that Jesus died in your place? paid on the Cross for your sin? bore God's wrath on your behalf?

It also is silly. How is God requited by the death of his son? To whom is the payment made?

the payment is made TO GOD. um....isn't it?

so, exactly why did Jesus die on the Cross, then?

could you choose some synonyms for requited, just so i'm clear on what you're offended by?
thanks.

[Ruminator]

Finney left preaching and went back to Law.
he was a total failure and he admitted it.

On what are you basing these assertions? Citation please.

[Nobunaga]

Words taken out of context are not a proper way to evaluate a person's position. But since you have a problem with that quote, may I ask you if you believe that you can sin as you please since you are "justified by faith apart from the religious activities of the law"? If you think that, you mock God. That is obviously not what Paul meant. He would say "MH GENIOTO!" or "May it never be!"

it's a quote and the context is in the quote, i dont think people would be too happy to read the entire book.

Why in the world would you ask me if i think i can go on sinning after being saved ?...you have me pegged and labeled already..don't you ?

Finney's point is that one is justified on the basis of one's faith, but only on the condition

Stop there and show me a condition on justification in scripture ? I thought that one is justified by faith ? do you agree or disagree ?

Anyone who thinks they are justified while sinning is just self-deluded.

Agreed, and if we say we have no sin we lie and the truth is not in us.

[zone]

Paul explained to the Corinthians that "perfect knowledge" was an unattainable goal for this life.

he was talking about the temporary supernatural Pentecostal gift of revelatory knowledge (the New Testament scriptures not only had not been recorded, the Plan was still being revealed!)

and that not everyone had to always agree on everything. This was his "better approach" to handling differences of opinion. The "bad approach" to differences was what he called "carnal" and damning..

i don't get this at all.
people aren't going to agree on some things unrelated to sound doctrine...but are you saying Paul was saying the doctrines of Christ, the Gospel didn't matter? that people needn't agree?

in the very next letter he's warning them against that very thing:

2 Corinthians 11:4
For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

Galatians...again...about teachings:

Galatians 1
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

The whole Catholic, Protestant, JW, Mormon, etc approach is the carnal approach of the Corinthians... the practice of creating sects with teachers with credentials from a human "head" quarters, etc.

ok.
why does it matter though?
do Mormons believe the same gospel and in the same Jesus as scripture teaches?

clearly not. they say Jesus is a created entity (and worse). so, this would be an example of bad doctrine, and i'm pretty sure paul would have condemned it (?)
not sure where you're going with this.....

[zone]

You would assert, then, that none of Finney's converts were, in fact, saved?

why would i assert that?

[zone]

On what are you basing these assertions? Citation please.

pardon me.
he stopped preaching and headed Oberlin College.
i'm only partially mistaken: find out what Asa Mahan of Oberlin said about Charles' effect on the students he beat up with the Law (of God).

as for being a failure? perhaps i was too generous in stating he knew it (that would have tweaked his conscience and indicated contrary to his heretical doctrine of perfectionism, that he had sinned).
his contemporaries pleaded with him to do damage control, but he moved on.

FINNEY:
In a revival, the Christian's heart is liable to get crusted over, and lose its relish for divine things; his unction and prevalence in prayer abate, and then he must be renewed again. It is impossible to keep him in such a state as not to do injury to the work, unless he passes through such a process every few days. I have never labored in revivals in company with any one who would keep in the work and be fit to manage revival continually, who did not pass through this process of breaking down as often as once in every two or three weeks...
(E.E. Shelhamer, Finney On Revival, p. 63).


JAMES BOYLE (Finney's contemporary)1834:
Dear brother Finney, let us look over the fields where you and others have labored as revival ministers, and what is now their moral state? What was their condition within three months after we left them? I have visited and revisited many of these fields, and groaned in spirit to see the sad, frigid, carnal, contentious state into which the churches have fallen--and fallen very soon after our first departure from them....
(B.B. Warfield, Perfectionism, p. 26).


there's more, sadly...
the point is, where did Finney go wrong? what caused these shallow professions and the dreadful fallout?

[zone]

it's a quote and the context is in the quote, i dont think people would be too happy to read the entire book.

i agree.

and yet its still very popular.
the dangers of his doctrines can't be seen without knowing the scriptures.
bank tellers learn to recognize counterfeits by handling real money.

Why in the world would you ask me if i think i can go on sinning after being saved ?.

Finneyite default response.
he taught (i think you know) perfectionism...the saved man never sins again the rest of his life (in word thought or deed).
his spirit has been 'excited' enough to stop being 'selfish' and obey God's Law perfectly.

I thought that one is justified by faith ? do you agree or disagree ?.

Paul said in Ephesians not our own doing...at all....

Agreed, and if we say we have no sin we lie and the truth is not in us.

yep. no truth in us...we deceive ourselves! wow. that's a scary condition.