Charles Grandison Finney

Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875), often called "America's foremost revivalist," was a major leader of the Second Great Awakening in America that had a profound impact on the history of the United States.

Contents

1 Life and theology 2 Finney's place in the social history of the United States 3 Controversy over Finney's theology 4 External links

Life and theology

Born in Warren, Connecticut as the youngest of seven children, Finney had humble beginnings. His parents were farmers, and Finney himself never attended college. However, his six foot two inch stature, piercing blue eyes, musical skill, and leadership abilities gained him good standing in his community. He studied as an apprentice to become a lawyer, but after a dramatic conversion experience in Adams, New York at the age of 29, Finney became a minister in the Presbyterian Church. Yet even from this stage, he was unwilling to embrace entirely the standards of faith expressed in the Westminster Confession, preferring to go straight to the Bible for his beliefs.

Finney moved to New York City in 1832 where he pastored the Broadway Tabernacle. Finney's logical, clear presentation of his Gospel message reached thousands and promised renewing power and the love of Jesus. Some estimates are that his preaching led to the conversion of over 500,000 people. His writings continue to challenge many to live a life holy and pleasing to God. His most famous work is the "Lectures on Revivals of Religion."[1] (http://www.gospeltruth.net/1868Lect_on_Rev_of_Rel/home68revlec.htm) The Christian singer Keith Green was heavily influenced by Finney, and other famous evangelicals like Billy Graham speak highly of his influence. Although Finney was originally a Presbyterian, he eventually became a Congregationalist and often bears much criticism from conservative Presbyterians.

Theologically, Finney drew elements from the eighteenth century American preacher, Jonathan Edwards and the New Divinity Calvinists. His teachings also resembled that of Nathaniel William Taylor, a professor at Yale University. Many people teach that Finney was an Arminian in his theology, but he explicitly denied this. Much closer to a "New Divinity" Calvinist, his views on the atonement and original sin are much closer to those espoused by the "moral government" theory that was particularly advocated by Joseph Bellamy and Samuel Hopkins. For example, Finney's views on the atonement were much closer to the moral government system that Edwards' followers embraced because it rejected the notion that Jesus died only for Christians. Nevertheless, he bore a tremendous amount of criticism by theologians such as Charles Hodge for departing from traditional high Calvinism, criticisms frequently repeated today. It has been reported that the theologian G. Frederick Wright pointed out that Hodge misrepresented Finney's views in his criticism, however.

Finney was known for his innovations in preaching and conducting religious meetings, such as allowing women to pray in public and the development of the "anxious bench," a place where those considering become Christians could come to receive prayer. Finney was also known for his use of extemporaneous preaching.

In addition to being a successful Christian evangelist, Finney was involved with the abolitionist movement and frequently denounced slavery from the pulpit. Beginning in the 1830s, he denied communion to slaveholders in his churches.

In 1835, he moved to Ohio where he would become a professor, and later President of Oberlin College. Oberlin was a major cultivation ground for the early movement to end slavery. Oberlin was also the first American university that allowed blacks and women into the same classrooms as white men.

Finney's place in the social history of the United States

As a new nation, the United States was undergoing massive social flux during the 19th century, and this period birthed quite a large number of independent, trans-denominational religious movements such as the Jehovah's Witnesses (1870), The Seventh-day Adventist Church (1863), Millerism (1830's and beyond) and Mormonism (1830). America's westward expansion brought about untold opportunities and a readiness to dispense with old thinking, an attitude that influenced people's religious understanding.

The Burned-over district was a geographical area described by Finney himself as a "hotbed" of religious revivalism, and it was in this area (largely western New York State) that he had much of his success. The lack of clergy from established churches ensured that religious activity in these areas was less influenced by traditional Christian teachings.

What Finney managed to achieve was to be the most successful religious revivalist during this period, and in this particular area. While groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Seventh-day Adventists became closed and exclusivist, Finney was widely admired and influential amongst more mainstream Christians. Finney never started his own denomination or church, and never claimed any form of special prophetic leadership that elevated himself above other evangelists and revivalists.

More flexible Christian denominations, such as the Baptists and Methodists, were able to draw many of Finney's converts into their churches while more established denominations, such as the Presbyterians, were not as successful.

Finney's involvement with the abolitionist movement ensured that the Northern states had some form of legitmate religious backing to their opposition to slavery. There is no doubt that the religious beliefs of the South were more conservative and more in line with the established church - including confessional Calvinism. In this sense, then, Finney's religious beliefs and his success matched the attitudes of the North more so than the South. It also set up a direct link between Revivalism and social welfare, a link that grew stronger in the church after the Civil War.

Controversy over Finney's theology

Since the early 1990s, a number of well-known Reformed theologians have raised serious questions about Finney's theology and have even claimed that his understanding of the Evangelical Gospel was deeply flawed. Such theologians have included R. C. Sproul and Michael Horton.

Objections over Finney's Gospel have arisen because of a number of explicit comments that Finney made and recorded in his systematic theology. In chapter 9 of this work ("Unity of Moral Action"), he attempts to answer the questions "Does a Christian cease to be a Christian, whenever he commits a sin?". His answer is as follows:

1. Whenever he sins, he must, for the time being, cease to be holy. This is self-evident.

2. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned. He must incur the penalty of the law of God. If he does not, it must be because the law of God is abrogated. But if the law of God be abrogated, he has no rule of duty; consequently, can neither be holy nor sinful. If it be said that the precept is still binding upon him, but that, with respect to the Christian, the penalty is for ever set aside, or abrogated, I reply--that to abrogate the penalty is to repeal the precept; for a precept without penalty is no law. It is only counsel or advice. The Christian, therefore, is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys; or Antinomianism is true.

3. When the Christian sins, he must repent, and "do his first works," or he will perish.

4. Until he repents he cannot be forgiven. In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground.

5. In two important respects the sinning Christian differs widely from the unconverted sinner:

(1.) In his relations to God. A Christian is a child of God. A sinning Christian is a disobedient child of God. An unconverted sinner is a child of the devil. A Christian sustains a covenant relation to God; such a covenant relation as to secure to him that discipline which tends to reclaim and bring him back, if he wanders away from God. "If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they break my statutes and keep not my commandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips." Ps. lxxxix. 30-34.

(2.) The sinning Christian differs from the unconverted man, in the state of his sensibility. In whatever way it takes place, every Christian knows that the state of his sensibility in respect to the things of God, has undergone a great change. Now it is true, that moral character does not lie in the sensibility, nor in the will's obeying the sensibility. Nevertheless our consciousness teaches us, that our feelings have great power in promoting wrong choice on the one hand, and in removing obstacles to right choice on the other. In every Christian's mind there is, therefore, a foundation laid for appeals to the sensibilities of the soul, that gives truth a decided advantage over the will. And multitudes of things in the experience of every Christian, give truth a more decided advantage over his will, through the intelligence, than is the case with unconverted sinners.[2] (http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Finney/Theology/st14.htm)

In his Systematic Theology, Finney fully embraced the evangelical doctrine of the "Perserverance of the Saints." [3] (http://www.charlesgfinney.com/1851Sys_Theo/st79.htm) At the same time, he took the presence of unrepented sin in the life of a professing Christian as evidence that they must immediately repent or be lost. Support for this position comes from Peter's treatment of the baptized Simon (see Acts 8) and Paul's instruction of discipline to the Corinthian Church (see 1 Corinthians 5). This type of teaching underscores the strong emphasis on personal holiness found in Finney's writings. What, therefore, is considered "sin" that is evidence of falling away? According to Finney, it is habitual sin, not an occasional or rare lapse:

These (1 John 5:1, 4, 18) and similar passages expressly teach the persevering nature of true religion, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit: in other words, they teach that the truly regenerate cannot sin, in the sense at least of living in anything like habitual sin. They teach, that with all truly regenerate souls, holiness is at least the rule, and sin only the exception; that instead of its being true, that the regenerate souls live a great majority of their days subsequent to regeneration in sin, it is true that they so seldom sin, that in strong language it may be said in truth, they do not sin. This language so strongly and expressly teaches that perseverance is an unfailing attribute of Christian character, that but for the fact that other passages constrain us to understand these passages as strong language used in a qualified sense, we should naturally understand them as affirming that no truly regenerate soul does at any time sin. But since it is a sound rule of interpreting the language of an author, that he is, if possible, to be made consistent with himself; and since John, in other passages in this same epistle and elsewhere, represents that Christians, or truly regenerate persons, do sometimes sin; and since this is frequently taught in the Bible, we must understand these passages just quoted as only affirming a general and not a universal truth; that is, that truly regenerate persons do not sin anything like habitually, but that holiness is the rule with them, and sin only the exception.[4] (http://wesley.nnu.edu/RelatedTraditions/Finney/Systematic/finney6.htm#49%20PERSEVERANCE%20PROVED)

Numerous attempts by anti-Finney persons have tried to associate him with Pelagianism or salvation by works. It is important to note that Finney strongly affirmed salvation by faith, not by works or by obedience. See [5] (http://www.charlesgfinney.com/1837LTPC/lptc05_just_by_faith.htm) and [6] (http://www.gospeltruth.net/1837LTPC/ltpc06_sanc_by_faith.htm). Finney did believe that works were the evidence of faith. The presence of sin thus evinced that a person never had saving faith.

There are also questions over Finney's understanding of the meaning of Jesus' death on the Cross. His view is complex and has suffered from multiple attacks, often due to reading quotes out of context. To read the full exposition, see [7] (http://www.charlesgfinney.com/1851Sys_Theo/st56.htm).

His view of justification can be summarized by the following quote:

It [justification] 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 favour those who have sinned, and those whom the law had pronounced guilty, and upon whom it had passed the sentence of eternal death, and rewarding them as if they had been righteous. It is an act either of the law-making or executive department of government, and is an act entirely aside from, and contrary to, the forensic or judicial power or department of government. It is an ultimate treatment of the sinner as just, a practical, not a literal, pronouncing of him just. It is treating him as if he had been wholly righteous, when in fact he has greatly sinned.[8] (http://www.charlesgfinney.com/1851Sys_Theo/st56.htm).

For Finney, it was Christ's death, not his perfect obedience, that formed the basis of justification.

Had he obeyed for us, he would not have suffered for us. If his obedience was to be substituted for our obedience, he need not certainly have both fulfilled the law for us, as our substitute under a covenant of works, and at the same time have suffered, a substitute for the penalty of the law.[9] (http://www.charlesgfinney.com/1840skeletons/sk_lecture37.htm)

In his Systematic Theology, he expands on this point:

The doctrine of an imputed righteousness, or that Christ's obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption; to wit, that Christ owed no obedience to the law in his own person, and that therefore his obedience was altogether a work of supererogation, and might be made a substitute for our own obedience; that it might be set down to our credit, because he did not need to obey for himself.

I must here remark, that justification respects the moral law; and that it must be intended that Christ owed no obedience to the moral law, and therefore his obedience to this law, being wholly a work of supererogation, is set down to our account as the ground of our justification upon condition of faith in him. But surely this is an obvious mistake. We have seen, that the spirit of the moral law requires good-will to God and the universe. Was Christ under no obligation to do this? Nay, was he not rather under infinite obligation to be perfectly benevolent? Was it possible for him to be more benevolent than the law requires God and all beings to be? Did he not owe entire consecration of heart and life to the highest good of universal being? If not, then benevolence in him were no virtue, for it would not be a compliance with moral obligation. It was naturally impossible for him, and is naturally impossible for any being, to perform a work of supererogation; that is, to be more benevolent than the moral law requires him to be. This is and must be as true of God as it is of any other being. Would not Christ have sinned had he not been perfectly benevolent? If he would, it follows that he owed obedience to the law, as really as any other being. Indeed, a being that owed no obedience to the moral law must be wholly incapable of virtue, for what is virtue but obedience to the moral law?

But if Christ owed personal obedience to the moral law, then his obedience could no more than justify himself. It can never be imputed to us. He was bound for himself to love God with all his heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, and his neighbour as himself. He did no more than this. He could do no more. It was naturally impossible, then, for him to obey in our behalf. This doctrine of the imputation of Christ's obedience to the moral law to us, is based upon the absurd assumptions, (1.) That the moral law is founded in the arbitrary will of God, and (2.) That of course, Christ, as God, owed no obedience to it; both of which assumptions are absurd. But if these assumptions are given up, what becomes of the doctrine of an imputed righteousness, as a ground of a forensic justification? "It vanishes into thin air."

There are, however, valid grounds and valid conditions of justification.

1. The vicarious sufferings or atonement of Christ is a condition of justification, or of the pardon and acceptance of penitent sinners. It has been common either to confound the conditions with the ground of justification, or purposely to represent the atonement and work of Christ as the ground, as distinct from and opposed to a condition of justification. In treating this subject, I find it important to distinguish between the ground and conditions of justification, and to regard the atonement and work of Christ not as a ground, but only as a condition of gospel justification. By the ground I mean the moving, procuring cause; that in which the plan of redemption originated as its source, and which was the fundamental reason or ground of the whole movement. This was the benevolence and merciful disposition of the whole Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This love made the atonement, but the atonement did not beget this love. The Godhead desired to save sinners, but could not safely do so without danger to the universe, unless something was done to satisfy public, not retributive justice. The atonement was resorted to as a means of reconciling forgiveness with the wholesome administration of justice. A merciful disposition in the Godhead was the source, ground, mainspring, of the whole movement, while the atonement was only a condition or means, or that without which the love of God could not safely manifest itself in justifying and saving sinners.[10] (http://www.charlesgfinney.com/1851Sys_Theo/st56.htm).

What then is the role of Christ's righteousness? It was important because if Jesus sinned, then he would himself have incurred the penalty of death. Since Jesus was sinless, then his death could be a substitute for others. [11] (http://www.charlesgfinney.com/1840skeletons/sk_lecture37.htm)

In fact, Finney does not deny Christ's imputed righteousness -- he simply does not make it the basis of justification. Christ's righteousness is still imputed on believers:

His taking human nature, and obeying unto death, under such circumstances, constituted a good reason for our being treated as righteous.

1. It is a common practice in human governments, and one that is founded in the nature and laws of mind, to reward distinguished public service by conferring favors on the children of those who had rendered this service, and treating them as if they had rendered it themselves. This is both benevolent and wise. Its governmental importance, its wisdom and excellent influence have been most abundantly attested in the experience of nations.

2. As a governmental transaction, this same principle prevails, and for the same reason, under the government of God. All that are Christ's children and belong to him, are received for his sake, treated with favor, and the rewards of the righteous are bestowed upon them for his sake. And the public service which he has rendered the universe by laying down his life for the support of the divine government, has rendered it eminently wise that all who are united to him by faith should be treated as righteous for his sake.[12] (http://www.charlesgfinney.com/1840skeletons/sk_lecture37.htm)

Besides making Christ's death the centerpiece of justification rather than his obedience, Finney's understanding of the atonement was that it satisfied "public justice" and that it opened up the way for God to pardon people of their sin. This was the view of the disciples of Jonathan Edwards' followers, the so-called New Divinity which was popular at that time period (many other prominent theologians in church history have held similar views). In this view, Christ's death satisfied public justice rather than retributive justice. As Finney put it, it was not a "commercial transaction."[13] (http://www.charlesgfinney.com/1840skeletons/sk_lecture37.htm) This differs from the Calvinistic view where Jesus sufferings equal the amount of suffering that Christians would experience in hell. In the moral government or governmental view of the atonement, Jesus dies for the whole world, not just Christians, and takes their sin upon him in a more symbolic way.

External links

• The Complete Works of Charles Finney (http://www.gospeltruth.net/cgfworks.htm)
• A biography of Charles Finney by G. Frederick Wright (http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Finney/Biography/finneybi.htm)
• Monergism.com's list of articles on Finney (http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/bad_theology.html) (critical)
• An analysis of Finney's Perfectionism (http://members.aol.com/leohirrel/finney/) (neutral)
• A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing - How Charles Finney's Theology Ravaged the Evangelical Movement (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm) (critical)