Charles Finney quoted in True and False Conversion (1983)

[Vox Oculi]

I did find some posts on this guy, about 5 years old at the most recent, however. I happened to remember the name from a WWE (?) clip where some young, restless reformed had put Joel Osteen, Stephen Anderson, Rick Warren and Charles Finney's faces on wrestler faces, and Spurgeon on (John Cena's?) as he was demolishing the others in the ring.

Here's a wiki link to Charles Finney.

Here's the link to the video I mentioned.

That brings me to this. As I was linking this to someone who was a self-deceived false convert (atheist who insisted that he used to be a true believer), I started reading Ray Comfort's True and False Conversion again.

That's when I came across:

Paul says in Romans 7:7, “I had not known sin but by the Law.” Charles Finney said, “Evermore the Law must prepare the way for the gospel.” Now Finney had an 80% retention rate. He said, “Evermore the Law must prepare the way for the gospel. To overlook this in instructing souls is almost certain to result in false hope, the introduction of a false standard of Christian experience, and to fill the church with false converts.” And then he said, “Time will make this plain.”

Someone in another thread had made a reference to Wesley in relation to Finney(?) so I include this:

John Wesley said of those who failed to use God’s Law in evangelism, “All this proceeds from the deepest ignorance of the nature of the properties and of the use of the Law, and proves that those who act thus either know not Christ, or are the strangers to living faith, or at least they’re but babes in Christ, and as such unskilled in the Word of righteousness.”

Bottom line: is this reference necessarily promoting Finney, or more so to use the fact that "even this guy" (in context referring to well known preachers who drew large crowds) agrees with him, so that if there are Finney followers reading, they'll be more disposed to accept the teaching?

I encourage others to read the whole thing. It's orthodox, and an important teaching. The mention of Finney stood out to me, but he's not directly promoted, nor is the teaching built on him or the other preachers, but on Scripture. So in the final analysis, would you agree that there isn't a severe issue with this, that would discourage you from recommending it to someone?

 

[johnny]

Hi Vox,

Are you asking if Ray Comfort's article is promoting Finney?

I believe Mr Comfort is Semi Pelagian so he would be using a different lens to us Reformed folk.
In that sense he may be mildy promoting Finney but I havent read Mr Comfort's article.

Here is a good article on Finney written by Michael Horton.

http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var2=625

As for "Finney Followers" no need to worry about that on Puritan Board.
As the article above states, Finney actively stood against the WCF, calling it a paper pope.
This is not a confessional position at all and Finney is to be avoided like the plague.

Quote from article:

With the Westminster Confession in his sights, Finney declares of the Reformation's formula "simultaneously justified and sinful", "This error has slain more souls, I fear, than all the universalism that ever cursed the world." For, "Whenever a Christian sins he comes under condemnation, and must repent and do his first works, or be lost" (p. 60).

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Vox (what's your real name, if I may ask?),

I was under the thrall of both Finney and Wesley for many years as a young believer, and they both were a bane on my life. With CF I was taught that it all depended on my will—my effort and performance—and from JW that I could attain to a state of "Christian perfection" after receiving the "second blessing", a sort of Charismatic-equivalent outpouring of the Holy Spirit that would usher me into a permanent state of "entire sanctification".

The parts of upstate NY where Finney "ministered" were later called the "Burnt-over" districts, as spiritual work in them was exceedingly difficult. CF wrought havoc among the Presbyterian churches with his view that one had to be "fervent" and emotionally wrought up in one's profession of faith. He introduced much ill into the churches with his "methods". BB Warfield has a good critique of him in his book on Christian Perfectionism.

CF left me with an understanding that there are skilled orators who may sound really good, yet may well be a mixed bag, with some of the devil in it ("mixed bag" is being generous)—and that such skill and fervor may not be of God at all.

 

[Jeremy Ivens]

One good treatment of Finney is actually found in Iain H. Murray's book: Pentecost Today

He gives a great rundown on what Finney believed and practiced. I believe in the second chapter.

 

[uberkermit]

I used to (enthusiastically) read Finney, and this is something that kind of turned me off (from his own memoir):

It will be remembered that at this time I belonged to the Presbyterian church myself. I had been licensed and ordained by a presbytery, composed mostly of men educated at Princeton. I have also said that when I was licensed to preach the gospel, I was asked whether I received the Presbyterian confession of faith, as containing the substance of Christian doctrine. I replied that I did, so far as I understood it. But not expecting to be asked any such question, I had never examined it with any attention, and I think I had never read it through. But when I came to read the confession of faith and ponder it, I saw that although I could receive it, as I now know multitudes of Presbyterians do, as containing the substance of Christian doctrine, yet there were several points upon which I could not put the same construction that was put on them at Princeton; and I accordingly, everywhere, gave the people to understand that I did not accept that construction; or if that was the true construction, then I entirely differed from the confession of faith. I suppose that Mr. Patterson understood this before I went to labor with him; as when I took that course in his pulpit he expressed no surprise. Indeed, he did not at all object to it.

The Memoirs of the Rev. Charles G. Finney

What bothered me then, and still does, is that he essentially lied in his examination (because he had not even thoroughly read and understood the confession). Not knowing he was going to be asked about it was not a valid excuse; he could have told them the truth, as he related it in his memoir.

Furthermore, when he realised (after his ordination!) that there were things in the confession he could not agree with, he should have stepped down. But instead, he used the pulpit to teach against it.

I wasn't even close to being a Presbyterian at the time, and that struck me as just wrong.

I would note that his Presbytery could well have been at fault also. At the very least, it should give all presbyters cause for prayerful caution with students under care. (Acts 14:23)