The Legacy of Charles Finney

Michael S. Horton Finney Jerry Falwell described as "one of my heroes and many e
vangelicals, including Billy Graham." I remember having visited the Billy Graham
a few years ago, observing the place of honor given to Finney in the gospel tra
dition. This was reinforced by memories of my first theology class at a Christia
n college, in which it was requested that we read the work of Finney. The reviva
list of New York has been frequently cited and celebrated as a hero, the Christi
an singer Keith Green and the organization Youth With A Mission. Finney is parti
cularly esteemed leaders of movements between conservative evangelicals and libe
rals, both Jerry Falwell and by Jim Wallis (Sojourners magazine). And your brand
can be seen in several moves that seem to have different positions, but in real
ity they are the inheritors of the legacy of Finney. For groups such as the Vine
yard movement and church growth in political and social campaigns, the televange
list and movement, Promise Keepers (Keepers of the Promise), "Finney lives!", Ci
ting the words of one of the presidents of Wheaton College . This is because the
moral impulse of Finney envisioned a church that, on a large scale would be an
agent of reform in society and the individual, rather than an institution where
the means of grace, the Word of God and the ordinances are made provision of bel
ievers who then take the gospel to the world. In the nineteenth century, the eva
ngelical movement was identified, so increasingly, with political causes - the a
bolition of slavery, child labor laws, women's rights and the prohibition of alc
oholic beverages. At the turn of the century with the influx of Roman Catholic i
mmigrants, leaving many American Protestants apprehensive, secularism began to l
essen the influence of the evangelical movement to institutions (universities, h
ospitals, charitable organizations) that had created and maintained. In a desper
ate effort to regain this institutional power and the glory of "Christian Americ
a" (an ideal that has always dominated the imagination of some, but after the di
sintegration of Puritan New England, became delusional), Protestantism has launc
hed the turn of the century campaigns to "Americanize" immigrants, emphasizing t
he teaching of moral values and "character education". Evangelists pitched in hi
s gospel
terms of practical utility to the individual and the nation. This is why Finney
is so popular. He was largely responsible for the shift from Reformation orthodo
xy, evident in the Great Awakening (under Edwards and Whitefield), for the Armin
ian revivalism (in fact, even Pelagian), evident from the Second Great Awakening
to the present. To demonstrate the debt of modern evangelicalism to Finney, we
must first notice his theological deviations. Based on these deviations, he beca
me the father of some of the major challenges within the evangelical churches th
emselves, ie the Church Growth Movement, the Political revivalism and Pentecosta
lism.
Who was Charles Finney?
Reacting against the Calvinism of the Great Awakening, the successors of that gr
eat movement of Spirit afastaramse the way of the Lord and followed the men, sep
arated from the preaching of objective content (ie crucified) for the emphasis o
n getting people to "make a decision." Charles Finney (1792-1875) ministered in
the wake of the "Second Awakening" as it has been called. He was a lawyer and me
mber of the Presbyterian church, on a certain day, he experienced "a mighty bapt
ism of the Holy Spirit," which, "like a wave of energy," he reported, "ran throu
gh my being, seeming to come in waves of love net. " The next morning, he inform
ed his first client: "I can no longer defend their cause, have a calling to defe
nd the cause of the Lord Jesus." Recusandose to attend Princeton Seminary (or an
y other seminar), Finney began conducting revivals in upstate New York. One of h
is most popular sermon was "Sinners Bound to Change Their Own Hearts." When cons
idering any matter to be taught, this was the fundamental question of Finney: "T
his is good to convert sinners?" One result of Finney's revivalism was the divis
ion of Presbyterians in Philadelphia and New York into Arminian and Calvinistic
factions. "New Dimensions" Finney's included the "seat of anxiety" (forerunner o
f today's call to "come forward"), emotional tactics that led people to feel hop
eless and cry, and other "incentives" as he and his followers called them. Finne
y became more and more hostile to Presbyterianism,€referring critically on the
introduction of his work
"Systematic Theology at Westminster and their makers as if they had created a" r
egular papal "and" raised his Confession and Catechism to the throne of the pope
and the place of the Holy Spirit. " Remarkably, Finney demonstrates how the Arm
inian revivalism, because of its appeal to natural feelings, tends to be a polit
e way of theological liberalism, as both surrendered to the Enlightenment and it
s worship and understanding of human morality: "The fact that the confession pre
pared by the Westminster Assembly would be recognized in the nineteenth century
as a standard for church or for a specific group it is not only surprising but a
lso (I must say) is quite ridiculous. It is as ridiculous as the theology would
in any other science. And better to have a pope alive than dead. "
What was wrong in the theology of Finney?
We need not go beyond the content of his Systematic Theology to recognize that F
inney's entire theology revolved around human morality. Chapters 1-5 talk about
the government, the obligation and the unity of moral action. The chapters 6 and
7 refer to the "Full Compliance" Chapters 8-14 discuss attributes of love, self
ishness, virtue and vice in general. Only in Chapter 21, the reader finds someth
ing specifically Christian, referring to the atonement. This is followed a discu
ssion of regeneration, repentance and faith. There is a chapter on justification
followed by six on sanctification. In other words, Finney did not really write
a systematic theology but a collection of essays on ethics. However, we are not
claiming that the work of Finney lacks some significant theological statements.
Answering the question: "The believer is no longer a believer when he commits a
sin?" Finney said: "Whenever he sins, the believer is no longer holy. This is ob
vious. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned; must incur the penalty of the law
of God. If anyone says that the rule of law still exists, but that in the case
of the believer, the penalty was annulled forever, I answer that I annul the pen
alty of the law is clear his precept, therefore, if the rule does not demand pun
ishment, there is no law, but just a warning or advice. Therefore, the believer
is justified in proportion to their obedience and must be condemned when he diso
beys, otherwise, antinomianism becomes true .. . In this sense, the believer and
the unbeliever sins are exactly the same situation "(p.
46). Finney believed that God demands absolute perfection, but instead of gettin
g people to seek his perfect righteousness in Christ, he concluded that "... the
full present obedience is a condition of justification. But as the question man
can be justified while sin remains in him?, answer, is not sure, whether based
on principles of law or the gospel, unless the law is annulled. He can be forgiv
en, accepted and justified in the gospel sense, while sin in any degree, it rema
ins? Absolutely not "(p. 57). Later we'll talk more about the doctrine of justif
ication taught by Finney, but now we emphasize that it is based on the denial of
the doctrine of original sin. Claimed both by Catholics when for evangelicals,
this biblical teaching repeats insistently that we are all born into sin and cor
ruption and inherited guilt of Adam. We are therefore in bondage to a sinful nat
ure. As someone said: "We sin because we are sinners", the condition of sin dete
rmines sinful acts, and not vice versa. Finney, however, followed the teachings
of Pelagius, the heretic of the fifth century, which, by denying that doctrine w
as condemned by the church councils, more than any other person in church histor
y. Unlike the doctrine of original sin, Finney believed that human beings are ab
le to choose whether to be corrupt by nature or redeemed, referring to the doctr
ine of original sin as "an illogical dogma and biblical foundation" (p. 179) . I
n plain terms, he denied the idea that men have a sinful nature (ibid.). Therefo
re, if Adam leads us into sin and this is not because we inherited the guilt or
corruption, but because we follow his poor example, this leads logically to thin
k that Christ, the Second Adam, saves us through his example. This is exactly wh
ere Finney arrived in explaining the doctrine of atonement. The first thing to n
ote about the atonement, Finney says, is that Christ could not have died for the
sin of anyone else except himself.€His obedience to the law and his perfect ri
ghteousness were sufficient to save only himself, but could not be accepted on b
ehalf of others. The fact that the whole theology of Finney resulted from an int
ense passion for moral improvement can be seen in this statement: "If Christ had
obeyed the law as our Substitute, in the biblical insistence on our return to p
ersonal obedience, showing how this obedience a fundamental requirement for our
salvation? " (P. 206). In other words, why God insists save us through our obedi
ence to the work of
Christ was enough? The reader should recall the words of the apostle Paul, in re
lation to this matter: "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness
comes through the law, it follows that Christ died in vain" (Gal 2:21). Finney's
answer seems to agree with this verse. The difference is this: he had no diffic
ulty in accepting both premises. Clearly, this is not the whole truth, because F
inney believed that Christ had died for some reason - not by someone but by some
thing. In other words, Christ died for a purpose and not for people. The goal of
death was to reassert the moral government of God and lead us to eternal life t
hrough his example, just as Adam's example encourages us to sin. Why did Christ
die? God knew that "the atonement would present to creatures the highest motives
to virtue. The case is the most powerful moral influence that can be practiced
... If the benevolence manifested in the atonement does not subdue the selfishne
ss of sinners, the situation is hopeless "(p. 209). Therefore we are not helples
s sinners who need to be redeemed, but wayward sinners who need a demonstration
of altruism so moving that we will be motivated to abandon selfishness. Finney n
ot only believed that the theory of the atonement "moral influence" was the prim
ary way of understanding the cross, he explicitly denied the vicarious atonement
, because it "admits that the atonement was a literal payment of a debt which, a
s we have seen, is not consistent with the nature of the atonement ... It is tru
e that the atonement, of itself, does not ensure the salvation of any person "(p
. 217). Now consider the views of Finney as to how to apply the atonement. Rejec
ting orthodox Calvinism of the old Presbyterians and Congregationalists, Finney
argued strenuously against the belief that the new birth is a gift of God, insis
ting that "regeneration consists in the sinner to change his intention, his pref
erence and his final choice, or change from selfishness to love and benevolence,
"driven by moral influence of the moving example of Christ (p. 224). "The origi
nal sinfulness, physical regeneration, and all dogmas and resulting similar to t
hese are opposed to the gospel and are repulsive to human intelligence" (p. 236)
. Not considering the original sin, vicarious atonement and the supernatural cha
racter of the new birth, Finney went ahead and attacked "the article by which th
e church stands or falls on foot" - the gratuitous justification by faith alone.
The Protestant Reformers insisted, based on clear biblical texts, that the just
ification (in Greek, "to declare righteous" instead of "making right") was a for
ensic verdict (ie, "judicial"). In other words, while the
Rome maintained that justification was a process for making a bad person better,
reformers argued that the justification was a statement or a statement that som
eone had the righteousness of another person (ie Christ). Therefore, the justifi
cation was a perfect view edict, granted once and for all, stating that someone
remained intact since the beginning of the Christian life, and in no other stage
of this. The key words in the evangelical doctrine "forensic" (meaning "order")
and "attribution" (post on behalf of someone; opposing the idea of "infusion" o
f justice in one's soul). Knowing all this, Finney said: "It is impossible and a
bsurd that sinners are declared legally righteous ... As we shall see, there are
several conditions, but only a foundation for the justification of sinners. We
have said that there is no justification in the forensic sense or judicial, but
a justification based on continuous, perfect and universal obedience to the law.
This, undoubtedly, is denied by those who hold that gospel justification, or ju
stification of penitent sinners, is the character of a forensic or judicial just
ification . They cling to the legal maxim that what a man does through another i
s deemed to be made by himself, so the law regards Christ's obedience as ours,€
based on the fact that he obeyed for us. "To this, Finney said:" The doctrine of
an imputed righteousness, ie, that obedience to the law of Christ was regarded
as our own, is based on a false assumption and without logic. "After all, the ri
ghteousness of Christ" could be justified only to Himself. Could never be impute
d to us ... He was naturally impossible to obey the law in our favor. "This" int
erpretation of atonement as the basis of the justification of sinners has been a
n occasion of stumbling to many "(pp. 320-322). The notion that faith is the onl
y condition of justification is "an antinomian point of view," said Finney. "We
shall see that perseverance in obedience to the end is also a condition for just
ification." Moreover, "this sanctification in the sense of full consecration to
God, is another condition ... justification. Some theologians have made justific
ation a condition of sanctification, instead of making sanctification a conditio
n of justification. But we shall see, this is a misconception about the justific
ation "(pp. 326-327). Each act of sin requires" a new justification "(p. 321). R
eferring to" the framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith "and to the poin
t of view of an imputed righteousness, Finney wondered, saying:" If this is not
antinomianism, I know not what "(p. 332). This legal was irrational for him, so
concluded: "I regard these dogmas as fabulous, describing a novel more than a th
eological system" (p. 333). In the section in which he spoke against the Westmin
ster Assembly, he concluded by saying: "The relations between the former point o
f view of justification and point of view of depravity is obvious. Members of th
e hold, as we have seen, that the constitution of man in all its parts and facul
ties, is sinful. Of course, a return to personal holiness in this, in the sense
of entire conformity to God's law, in their opinion, can not be a condition for
justification. They need to have a justification while yet at least some degree
of sin. This must be accomplished through the imputed righteousness. The intelle
ct revolts at a justification in sin. Therefore, a method was invented so that t
he eyes of the law and his donor are removed focused on the sinner and his subst
itute, who perfectly obeyed the law "(p.339). Finney called the doctrine of "ano
ther gospel." Insisting that the realistic description of Paul in Romans 7 actua
lly refers to the life of the apostle before he had reached the "perfect sanctif
ication, Wesley Finney surpassed in arguing for the possibility of entire sancti
fication in this life. John Wesley said that it is possible for the believer to
full sanctification, but when he recognized that the best of the believers sins,
he sat down to the reality of the facts, saying that the experience of "Christi
an perfection" was a matter of heart and not shares. In other words, a believer
can be perfected in love, so that this love becomes the only motivation for his
actions, while occasionally making mistakes. Finney rejected this view and insis
ted that justification is conditioned on complete and total perfection - that is
, the "entire conformity to the law of God," and the believer can do this, but w
hen it infringes at some point, further justification is required . As pointed o
ut so eloquently B. B. Warfield, the Princeton theologian, there are two religio
ns in human history: paganism - of which Pelagianism is an expression - and supe
rnatural redemption. With Warfield and others who earnestly warned his brothers
about the mistakes of Finney and his successors, we must also evaluate the wildl
y heterodox Protestants Americans. With its roots in Finney's revivalism, perhap
s the liberal Protestantism and evangelical Protestantism, after all, are not so
far apart! "New Measures" of Finney, similar to the modern Church Growth Moveme
nt, made the choice of man and the emotions the center of the ministry of the ch
urch, theology ridiculed and replaced the preaching of Christ by the preaching o
f conversions.
Based on the natural morality advocated by Finney, political campaigns and socia
l rights of Christians build their faith in humanity and in their own resources
to salvation itself. Echoing some of deism, Finney said: "In spiritual life ther
e is nothing beyond the natural capacity, she is totally correct in exercising t
hese capabilities. It is just that and nothing more. When mankind becomes truly
religious,€people are enabled to demonstrate that efforts were unable to expres
s before. Only exert powers which they had before, and they used the wrong way,
and now employ for the glory of God. "Thus, since the new birth is a natural phe
nomenon, so is the revival:" A revival is not a miracle , nor dependent on, eith
er way, it is just a philosophical result of the correct use of the established
media, as well as any other effect produced by employing these means. "The belie
f that the new birth and a revival necessarily depend on divine activity pernici
ous to Finney. He said: "No doctrine is more dangerous than this for the progres
s of the church, and nothing can be more absurd" (revivals of religion [Revivals
of Religion], Revell, pp. 4-5). When leaders the church growth movement claim t
hat theology prevents the growth of the church and insist that no matter what pa
rticular church believes in particular, growth is a matter of following the prop
er principles, they are displaying their debt to Finney. When Vineyard movement
leaders praise this sub Finney's, and the screaming, the disorder, talking loudl
y, laughing and the other, strange phenomena, based on the idea that "it works"
and that we should judge the truth of these things the fruits produced, these le
aders are following the ideas of Finney and William James, the father of America
n pragmatism. The Court has held that a truth must be judged according to "its v
alue in practice." Thus, in Finney's theology, God is not sovereign, man is sinf
ul by nature, the atonement is not really a payment for sin, justification by im
putation is insulting to reason and morality, the new birth is only the result o
f using techniques well achievers, and the revival is the natural result of clev
er campaigns. In his recent introduction to the bicentennial edition of Finney's
Systematic Theology, Harry Conn recommends Finney's pragmatism: "Many servants
of God seek a gospel that 'works'; feel I am happy to declare that this work wil
l find it. "As Whitney R. Cross carefully documented in his book, The Burned-Ove
r District, The Social and Intellectual History of Enthusiastic Religion in West
ern New York, 1800-1850 (Cornell University Press, 1950 ), the whole territory i
n which more
frequency were held revivals of Finney was also the birthplace of religious perf
ectionists that plagued that century. A gospel that 'works' today, for the zealo
us perfectionists only creates supercrentes deceived and sold out tomorrow. Need
less to say, Finney's message is radically contrary to the evangelical faith, as
well as the basic orientation of the movements we see around us, which show the
marks of Finney: the revivalism (or its modern, "the Church Growth Movement" ),
perfectionism and emotionalism Pentecostal, trends and anti-intellectual and an
ti-doctrinal fundamentalism and modern evangelicalism. It was through the "Highe
r Life Movement" (Higher Life Movement), the late nineteenth and early twentieth
century, that Finney's perfectionism came to dominate the newborn dispensationa
l movement by Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of the Seminar Dallas and author of H
e That Is Spiritual (He who is spiritual). Finney, however, is not solely respon
sible, it is more a product than a producer. Nevertheless, the influence he exer
ted and continues to exercise is comprehensive. The revivalist not only abandone
d the principle of the Reformation (justification), becoming a renegade against
evangelical Christianity, but also rejected the doctrines that have been embrace
d by Catholics and Protestants (such as original sin and substitutionary atoneme
nt). Therefore, Finney is not merely an Arminian, but a Pelagian. He is not only
an enemy of evangelical Protestantism, but of historic Christianity, in the bro
adest sense of the word. Do not point these things out with satisfaction, as if
to cheerfully denounce the heroes of American evangelicals. However, it is alway
s good, especially when we lose something of value, retrace one's steps to deter
mine where or when the last time we had in our possession. The purpose of this p
aper is to focus on, with sincerity, the serious departure from biblical Christi
anity by American revivalism. Until we address this gap, we will perpetuate a da
ngerous path and distorted. In a statement,€Finney was absolutely correct: the
gospel stated and defended by the theologians of Westminster (which he attacked
directly) and by all evangelicals is "another gospel" in the sense of being dist
inct from that Finney proclaimed. The big question right now is: Which of these
is our gospel? All quotes are taken from Finney's book Systematic Theology (Syst
ematic Theology, Bethany, 1976).