Why you should know him: Finney has been described by Michael Horton as “the tallest marker in the shift from Reformation orthodoxy, evident in the Great Awakening (under Edwards and Whitefield) to Arminian (indeed, even Pelagian) revivalism. evident from the Second Great Awakening to the present. To demonstrate the debt of modern evangelicalism to Finney, we must first notice his theological departures. From these departures, Finney became the father of the antecedents to some of today’s greatest challenges within evangelical churches, namely, the church growth movement, Pentecostalism and political revivalism.
Positions: evangelist, Presbytery of St. Lawrence, professor of theology and moral philosophy, and president of Oberlin College.
Education: no degrees.
Areas of interest/expertise: science of revival; moral philosophy, ethical perfection
Associations: abolitionism, temperance, feminism.
Books: Lectures on Revivals (1835); Lectures to Professing Christians (1838); Lectures on Systematic Theology (1846).
Unlike some, Old Lifers do not rely upon celebrities to boost their image, nor do they deny the less wholesome aspects of their past (or present) to root, root, root for the home team.
Old Life 
While Finney calls into question the possibility of justification while we are still sinners, there are many Calvinists who seem to always take sides with Wesley (if not with Finney) because they don’t think we can be sanctified and at the same time sinners. They think we can be being sanctified,but never yet sanctified while we are sinners.
And certainly the Bible does have more than one meaning of “sanctification”. The Holy Spirit using the gospel changes our minds so that we believe the gospel. II Thessalonians 2:13–”But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.” Of course we never perfectly believe the gospel in this life. That being said, we do either believe or not believe the gospel. We are either sanctified by the Holy Spirit OR WE ARE NOT.
Along with this antithesis, the Bible teaches another meaning for “sanctification”. Being set apart by the blood, by the death of Christ, is also called being sanctified and perfected in Hebrews Ten. In terms of this text, we are not more or less sanctified. Either we are sanctified OR WE ARE NOT.
I think we need to call into question the distinction between justification being God’s work alone and sanctification being a synergistic cooperation. Since the Calvinists who always take sides with Wesley always think of “sanctification” as something incomplete, they don’t want to blame God for the imperfection, so they step up and take part of the credit for the project of sanctification. We could always try harder, and thus be more sanctified. Sinning less becomes the condition of “sanctification”.
LikeLike
To quote from Charles Finney from the Mike Horton essay in answer to the question, “Does a Christian cease to be a Christian, whenever he commits a sin?”
Finney answers: “Whenever he sins, he must, for the time being, cease to be holy. This is self-evident. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned; he must incur the penalty of the law of God … If it be said that the precept is still binding upon him, but that with respect to the Christian, the penalty is forever 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 … In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground (p. 46).”
Finney: “… full present obedience is a condition of justification. But again, to the question, can man be justified while sin remains in him? Surely he cannot, either upon legal or gospel principles, unless the law be repealed … But can he be pardoned and accepted, and justified, in the gospel sense, while sin, any degree of sin, remains in him? Certainly not” (p. 57).
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: Why you should know him: Finney has been described by Michael Horton as “the tallest marker in the shift from Reformation orthodoxy, evident in the Great Awakening (under Edwards and Whitefield) to Arminian (indeed, even Pelagian) revivalism. evident from the Second Great Awakening to the present.”
RS: The Great Awakening was used by God to bring life into the Church. Word and Sacrament (Horton repeatedly uses this) leads to numbness and then deadness in the church and needs an Awakening of some sort to wake it up.. What is needed is the biblical teaching of Word and Spirit. People can use orthodox creeds to hide dead hearts from themselves and others. Besides, Finney was part of the Second Great Awakening which didn’t happen until fifty years after Edwards died. Those who loved the teaching of Edwards greatly opposed Finney. It is simply inaccurate to tie Edwards and Finney together. The teaching of Edwards was diametrically opposite of Finney and he was no more the forerunner of Finney that Augustine was of Pelagius though it was Augustive that Pelagius reacted against.
LikeLike
Richard, in Bellamy (1750) the Edwardeans (not Edwards) have already moved to general atonement and strongly toward a governmental theory of it. Both of these doctrines, and other later departures, such as the elimination of imputation and the sinful nature are crucial to Finney. All these rejections of orthodoxy are driven by the necessity of maintaining libertarian free will. Conforti, followed by Guelzo and Sweeney, make a reasonable case for including Finney in the Edwardean tradition. Even though you are mostly correct to contrast Finney and Edwards, I think that it would be worthwhile to read the three that I have mentioned, and, of course, Horton. Mark
LikeLike
Jonathan Edwards: “We are really saved by perseverance…the perseverance which belongs to faith is one thing that is really a fundamental ground of the congruity that faith gives to salvation…Though a sinner is justified in his first act of faith, yet even then, in that act of justification, God has respect to perseverance as being implied in the first act.”
Charles Finney: “… full present obedience is a condition of justification. Can man be pardoned and accepted, and justified, in the gospel sense, while sin, any degree of sin, remains in him? Certainly
not”
II Thessalonians 2:13–”But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and
belief in the truth.”
We never perfectly believe the gospel in this life. That being said, we either do believe or do not believe the gospel. We are either sanctified by the Holy Spirit or we are not.. Along with this
antithesis, the Bible teaches another meaning for “sanctification”. Being set apart by the blood, by the death of Christ, is also described as being sanctified and perfected in Hebrews chapter 10.
Our faith and perseverance are not the conditions or causes of sanctification.
The Bible of course does speaks of our perseverance. 1 Peter 2:5–”you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” But God accepts our works because God accepts our persons. God does not justify our persons based on the fitness of our future faith and works. Good works are pleasing to God when they are done by those who are already sanctified. Any perseverance done with Finney’s idea that saints cannot sin and still be saints is unacceptable to God.
LikeLike
L. Mark Bruffey: Richard, in Bellamy (1750) the Edwardeans (not Edwards) have already moved to general atonement and strongly toward a governmental theory of it.
RS: While Bellamy certainly sounded governmental in theory at times, he was also strongly substitutionary in his view of the atonment. For example, in his book Sin, the Law, and The Glory of the Gospel, there are times when he sounds rather governmental. However, in the section (other places as well) on Vindictive Justice an Amiable Perfection in the Beity; A Beauty in the Divine Character, his view of substitutionary atonement is quite clear. I have read several who have said that he believed in the governmental theory of the atonement, but that is quite different in saying that he only believed in the governmental theory. He is quite clear that God’s glory and beauty can be seen in the Law and as such the Law is beautiful and must be upheld. Since the Law is sent out as a representative of the character of God, in many ways God has to honor the Law in order to be true to Himself.
In other words, I don’t see Bellamy as rejecting substitutionary atonement at all though he held to elements of the governmental theory. When Finney denied substitutionary atonement, he would also have had to deny the aspects of the governmental theory that Bellamy held. A little quote to make a point:
“Vindictive justice is that perfection in the divine nature whereby God is inclined to punish sin according to its desert. The degree of ill desert there is in sin, is determined by the penalty threatened in the divine law.
“God’s giving his Son to die in our stead, to redeem us from the curse of the law, has led some to think that Gdo is not inclined to punish sin according to its desert; whereas his inclination to punish sin according to its desert, induced him to give his Son to die in our stead…Nor could the supreme King of the universe have given a clearer and stronger proof, that his inclination to punish sin according to its deser was well grounded, fixed, and unchangeable, than to give his own Son to suffer in the room of the sinner, altogether equivalent to what he was exposed to; to be made a curse, to redeem him from the curse…
“If vindictive justice is a glorious and amiable perfection, then it was a glorious and amiable thing in God to bruise him, and put his soul to grief, who had espoused our cause, and appeared as our representative.” Section VI
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Jonathan Edwards: “We are really saved by perseverance…the perseverance which belongs to faith is one thing that is really a fundamental ground of the congruity that faith gives to salvation…Though a sinner is justified in his first act of faith, yet even then, in that act of justification, God has respect to perseverance as being implied in the first act.”
Charles Finney: “… full present obedience is a condition of justification. Can man be pardoned and accepted, and justified, in the gospel sense, while sin, any degree of sin, remains in him? Certainly
not”
RS: But of course Edwards was speaking about the true God and His work while Finney was speaking of the work of man. Reading Edwards in context is always a good idea. When God declares sinners just on the basis of Christ, it would be inaccurate to say that He had no concept of the fact that He would work in them to persevere and that He would give them faith and grace to do so. Romans says so clearly that “these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” The glorification is spoken of as if it is already accomplished. In the mind of God it is as good as done.
LikeLike
Darryl,
What hath thou wrought?
😉
LikeLike
Too bad Finney isn’t still alive having his own Celebrity Preacher Conference so Lillback could send his crew out to set up a table and lend the WTS name to the event. Maybe he could borrow Doc Brown’s Delorean.
LikeLike
You can only find this kind of sarcasm at oldlife. I think it has become part of my mental makeup now. However, I think that may be a good thing although those that know me best may not agree with that.
LikeLike
My ex-wifes sister is trying to argue with me on my facebook page. She has no idea what she has gotten herself into and what I have been exposed to at oldlife.
LikeLike
Richard, thank you for your comments. It’s refreshing to engage someone in the blogosphere who has done some reading and presents findings thoughfully. I’m constantly developing my own perspective on the Edwardeans, so I appreciate your remarks on Bellamy very much. I was trying to be careful–not having read every stitch of Bellamy–to avoid making a blanket statement that reduced his theory of atonement to the governmental only. I’m still inclined to think, however, that he cracked open the door for the later developments that you see in Finney and Taylor. If that turns out to be an untenable theory, I will back off. Mark
LikeLike
L. Mark Bruffey: Richard, thank you for your comments. It’s refreshing to engage someone in the blogosphere who has done some reading and presents findings thoughfully. I’m constantly developing my own perspective on the Edwardeans, so I appreciate your remarks on Bellamy very much. I was trying to be careful–not having read every stitch of Bellamy–to avoid making a blanket statement that reduced his theory of atonement to the governmental only. I’m still inclined to think, however, that he cracked open the door for the later developments that you see in Finney and Taylor. If that turns out to be an untenable theory, I will back off. Mark
RS: If person A has an element in his thinking that when taken out of the whole context of person A’s theology and writings by person B and that is opening the door, then it can be true that Bellamy cracked open the door for later developments. I guess I love the writings of Bellamy and see his view of God as beautiful and glorious and his view of the atonement as one that upholds the honor of the law (and therefore of the Lawgiver), but part of how that is done is by the substitutionary atonement of Christ. It is hard for me to see how he could be “responsible” for someone arriving at the governmental theory only, but in the hands of Finney who knows. Finney appeared to do quite a job at twisting Scripture to arrive at the conclusions he wanted and I am sure Bellamy was open for him to do the same thing. I don’t think that Scripture is responsible for Finney and his twisting of it, so perhaps Bellamy is not either. However, since Bellamy was not inerrant and he was not as careful as he could have been at times, it is not totally (as I force my hand to type this) untenable to say that Finney could have used Bellamy to arrive at his heretical conclusions.
Allow me to give a quote of Bellamy since you wrested such a conclusion out of me: “If we are under an infinite obligation to love God supremely, live to him ulitmately, and take everlasting delight in him, because of his infinite glory and excellency, then the least disposition to disesteem him, to be indifferent about his interest and honor, or to disrelish communion wiht him; or the least disposition to love ourselves more than God, and be more concerned about out interes and honor than about his, and to be pleased and delighted in the things of the world more than in him, must, consequently, be infintely sinful, as is self-evident.
“When, therefore, the great Governor of the world threatens eternal damnation for the least sin, (Gal 3:10), he does the thing that is perfectly right; for an infinite evil deserves an infinite punishment.”
LikeLike
I wonder if the next “Know Your Presbyterians” entry will be on Dr. Robert Speer? Adding him would defintely fit the mood of this new series of posts.
LikeLike
Nathan S., great idea, but only when TGC piggy backs on Joel Osteen.
LikeLike
RS : Romans says so clearly that “these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” The glorification is spoken of as if it is already accomplished. In the mind of God it is as good as done.
On the hopeful assumption that voices from the Peanut Gallery are admitted —
For whatever little it may be worth (assuming anything), while Rabbi Paul often seems to be delving into deep, arcane mysteries, on closer examination he frequently turns out to have been teaching elementary Sunday School lessons to people unfamiliar with Hebrew. As (I would suggest) here.
It seems very relevant that there are but two tenses — imperfect (ongoing, incomplete action) and perfect. The perfect tense is also the future tense for, once God decrees something (as RS notes above) it is as good as done, whether it has come to pass yet or not.
From this perspective, the quandary results from trying to reconcile a perfect tense Reality (capital “R”) with the (imperfect tense) experience of the present.
LikeLike
Jonathan Edwards Jr:” His atonement is not a payment of our debt. If it had been, our discharge would have been an act of mere justice and not of grace.”
DG Hart: “The atonement was for the New England theologians an expression of benevolence but not an instance of divine mercy in accordance with the demands of the law.” p67, The Law Is Not of Faith
Hodge: “Christ by really obeying the law and really bearing the penalty in the place of his people secured the salvation of all the Father had given him.”
Hart: “New England theology taught a possible salvation…that only made mercy possible.”
LikeLike
mark mcculley: Jonathan Edwards Jr:” His atonement is not a payment of our debt. If it had been, our discharge would have been an act of mere justice and not of grace.”
DG Hart: “The atonement was for the New England theologians an expression of benevolence but not an instance of divine mercy in accordance with the demands of the law.” p67, The Law Is Not of Faith
Hodge: “Christ by really obeying the law and really bearing the penalty in the place of his people secured the salvation of all the Father had given him.”
Hart: “New England theology taught a possible salvation…that only made mercy possible.”
RS: I suppose one can say that New England Theologians taught that the atonement was only “an expression of benevolence but not an instance of divine mercy in accordance with the demands of the law.” But I suppose that would depend on which theologians one is talking about. It surely did not encompass them all.
LikeLike
Nathan S: I wonder if the next “Know Your Presbyterians” entry will be on Dr. Robert Speer? Adding him would defintely fit the mood of this new series of posts.
RS: Perhaps it could be done on Archibald Alexander, the first theology prof at Princeton. I don’t think his conversion followed an acceptable standard that is now here at OldLife.
“Blessed with an heritage of Scotch-Irish forefathers, and a father who was a Presbyterian elder, his family first settled in Pennsylvania before relocating to Virginia. Archibald was born in 1772 and by the age of seven, had learned the Shorter Catechism and was moving on to the Larger Catechism. He sat under the celebrated William Graham at Liberty Hall Academy, forerunner of Washington and Lee College. And yet with all of this training, Archibald was still unsaved. It wasn’t until he was sixteen that he was brought to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus.”
LikeLike
Richard, so how many hands were involved to get to this nugget of “historical” truth? You won’t believe critics of revival here, but you are convinced by anyone who agrees with your outlook? Dude, test the spirits.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, so how many hands were involved to get to this nugget of “historical” truth? You won’t believe critics of revival here, but you are convinced by anyone who agrees with your outlook? Dude, test the spirits.
RS: The expanded version of the content of my post is in James Garretson’s book on Princeton and Preaching. It goes beyond the simple post that I gave. It makes me wonder if old Princeton started off one way and then changed to become what you would think is more like Princeton. Yes, so far I have not seen anything legitimate against true revival presented and the grand old doctrine of regeneration and conversion that Archibald Alexander came to believe and preach. Let me give you another quote from the book:
“During this intitial period of study under Graham, Alexander developed a greater awareness of his own sinfulness. This experience led him to ask fundamental questions about the nature of salvation. He begn to wonder ‘whether anything more is necessary to salvation than a knowledge of the doctrines of the Gospel, an assent to their truth, and a decorous moral and religious deportment.’ “Regeneration…as an inward, supernatural change of heart and natuure’ was something which Alexander had not yet come to understand, Hodge comments.”
It would appear from this book which quotes a lot from Hodge who quoted Alexander a fair amount that Alexander began to read to an older woman who could not see well from the works of Flavel. He began to come under conviction of sin. He began to read Flavel on his own and began to see something of the doctrines of regeneration and justification. He went through a period of preparation as well. At some point he said that he owed more to Flavel’s writings than any other man for his conversion. It sounds like this first theological teacher at Princeton was a follower of the Puritan approach. By the way, it also said that he closely read Edwards on Original Sin and Religious Affections.
LikeLike