Jump to content

Talk:Charles Grandison Finney/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This archive includes threads from Talk:Charles Grandison Finney from the page's creation until December 31st, 2007.

Archive 1Archive 2

(Note - page refactored by sannse (talk) 10:36, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC).)

I'm not a supporter of Finney's theology, hence the negative nature of my additional comments and the links I have put in. I do, however, believe that in order for the article to be NPOV it needs to examine a little bit further the reason why Finney's theology is not held in high regard by some Christians.

Of the four links I gave, three were negative and one was simply a neutral link to a compendium for his theology. If anyone else can help contribute to this page, I would appreciate any links to sites that support Finney's views and have reasonable arguments against Horton, Johnson and Hodge. A few more links to original documents that Finney wrote would also be helpful.

Neilinoz 10:19, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The major problem with the webpage as it stands is that it contains several factual inaccuracies. Contrary to some beliefs, Charles Finney was neither Arminian nor Pelagian. Finney actually considered himself to be much closer to Calvin than Arminius. He believed that God was the principally active agent in salvation, and that the Perserverance of the Saints was true! Thus he could be neither Arminian, nor Pelagian. The historian Allen Guelzo has traced his thoughts better than anyone, so please, let's try to at least fairly depict his theology. To be true to his theology, he disavowed *both* labels. (Read the preface of his Systematic theology to see this.) Some of his theology resembled Calvinism, some parts resembled Arminianism. Furthermore, he absolutely believed in the total depravity of man, and in original sin. Finney taught that original sin was a falleness, albeit different from Calvinist's teaching that babies are actively sinning. It also seems highly unprofesional to add things like therefore Finney was "unsaved." Wikipedia should not be about editorialization, but about reporting facts. The last link about Finney's ravaging the evangelical church seems very unfair to cite without an opposing view. It's also a poorly written article.

6 March 2004

I'm not terribly happy with the way in which the unnamed user below [moved to above by sannse (talk) 10:36, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)] has edited this page. He/she has made the assumption that my additions were "factual inaccuracies" and "editorializing". I have read some of Finney's work and have read many articles about him. I realise that there are many different and opposing opinions about the man, but as an encyclopaedia article it should contain as much objective truth as possible. In Finney's case, the article must contain information about why so many theologians from a certain perspective find his beliefs and theology problematic.

It would have been better for the unnamed user to spend time adding his pertinant comments to the article rather than erasing what I had written. It would have added to the information about Finney rather than silencing the views of those who disagreed (including those people from that period in history)

I will restore the original page. If the unnamed contributor continues to cut things out without reason then I will have to notify the Wiki authorities. At worst, the IP address of the unnamed user could be banned from making any adjustments.

Neilinoz 05:44, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I’d like to address Neilnoz’s comments in detail because he does not understand the problems of the original article so I’ll spell them out in more detail. The absolute glaring error on the page as it stands now is its calling Finney an Arminian. By very definition, an Arminian denies the Perserverance of the Saints – in fact, this was their biggest problem with Calvinism. Finney held to the Perseverance of the Saints, so he cannot be an Arminian. Period. I’m not sure why there is difficulty on this point. If you’d like more evidence, here is some external evidence. Garth Rosell (Professor of church history at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary) the man who compiled the autobiography of Finney, clearly labels Finney as a “New Divinity” Calvinist. See here for one example:

http://www.tlogical.net/biofinney.htm

Also, see Lecture 34 of his Systematic theology (pp. 504-512) of the Bethany, 1994 edition.

Neilnoz – this is a point you have to address. Horton doesn’t touch on it, which is part of the tremendous problem with his article. From Neilnoz’s interests, it is easy to see why he is determined to mischaracterize Finney. (He even admits this below by saying that “I’m not a supporter of Finney’s theology, hence the negative nature of my additional comments.”) His interest is in Calvinism, and I’d venture to guess that he is a 5-point Calvinist. 5-point Calvinists like James Dana attacked Jonathan Edwards for his departure from Calvinism. (Like Finney, Jonathan Edwards was not a pure Calvinist, but neither was he an Arminian!) And so they attack Finney. It was so during their lives and it will always be so. Michael Horton (a 5-pointer, himself) is of this class as well. Interestingly, Finney anticipated these attacks. I have read Finney’s entire Systematic Theology (all 574 small print pages of it!) and am appalled at how few people have read it yet are willing to make uninformed criticism. Here was Finney’s response.

“If any of my brethren think to convince me of error, they must first understand me, and show that they have read the book through, and that they understand it, and are candidly inquiring after truth and not ‘striving for masteries.’ If my brother is inquiring after truth, I will, by the grace of God, ‘hear with both ears, and then judge.’ But I will not promise to attend to all that cavilers may say, nor to notice what those impertinent talkers and writers may say or write who must have controversy. But to all honest inquirers after truth I would say, Hail, my brother! Let us be thorough. Truth shall do us good.”

I hope we can do this.

Lest anyone say that the page is not currently anti-Finney, we have now 3 links from anti-Finney authors and *not one* from a pro-Finney source. My version of the article has one pro-Finney link and two anti-Finney links. This is much more balanced.

As for Neilnoz’s threat to report my corrections to the Wikipedia authorities, this is what Calvinists have always tried to do to those who dissent! We have an *admittedly* anti-Finney person trying to bash him, in the face of my factual evidence to the contrary. Neilnoz – why is hard for you to admit that a person cannot honestly be labeled as an Arminian or Pelagian if they hold to the Perseverance of the Saints? Again, please read this section of his Systematic Theology if you already haven’t. Don’t just read Horton’s criticism of Finney. Also don’t follow the example of historical Calvinists. John Calvin had Michael Servetus burned at the stake for dissenting (admittedly a strong example), James Dana called Jonathan Edwards a heretic, and Asahel Nettleton tried to silence Finney (though he later changed his views). At any rate, Neilnoz needs to realize that he simply does not have the facts right. His characterizations are just erroneous. Look up the above references.

Also, I urge those who really want to see how distorted Hodge’s (and later Horton’s) criticisms are to read this very important article published in Bibliotheca Sacra, 1876 Article VII by George Wright. The article is entitled “Dr. Hodge’s misrepresentation of President Finney’s System of Theology” and is reprinted in Appendix D of the 1994 Bethany edition of Finney’s Systematic Theology. It nicely illustrates the deliberate deception and lies that have always surrounded Finney (typified by Neilnoz’s version).

I don’t see how anyone in a calm mind can say that calling a person “unsaved” is at all appropriate for an encylopedia like this. Neilnoz – your anti-Finney bias becomes unbelievable at this point. Christianity is wider than your set of beliefs.

Finally, I’d like to point out that what I added (more biographical information about Finney), Neilnoz deleted! I added information about his birthplace, family, etc. that Neilnoz took out. Why? What was so controversial about that?

As for me, I am neither a Calvinist nor Arminian – I think both are errors of extremes. It is too dangerous and intellectually dishonest to peg people into two camps. The world (and certainly theology) is more complex than that! Vance’s book “The Other Side of Calvinism” does a masterful job at pointing out that this is how Calvinists treat anyone who does not enshrine the Westminister Catechism: they call them heterdox, unsaved, and other epithets. Let’s not make Wikipedia that oversimplistic rubbish that is too often parroted by those who lack knowledge.

24 March 2004

Okay, I'm not going to make any more changes because I am going to the Wiki authorities to talk about this. I wish to make the following points though.

1) The reason why I deleted biographical information.
Still being new to Wiki, all I did was copy my entire previous version and paste it into the edit section of "Edit this page". I didn't realise that I had taken away some biographical info.

2) My anti-Finney Bias.
I accept the charge that this is my position. But it does not therefore mean that I am incapable of writing a balanced article on Finney. The reason why I added the whole section on why many people find his theology difficult is so that all readers can have a balanced viewpoint. It is up to them to read the anti-Finney articles I posted. It is also up to them to read Finney's work themselves, which is why I also posted a link to his Systematic Theology. Yes - that's right, I posted a link to his theology, even though I disageed with him.

Your charge that I did not put into place any links that were favourable to Finney was answered by my original posting for this article - I didn't know any. So therefore I asked contributers to post those links, hoping that people who liked Finney would also contribute to the article. This showed my neutral point of view.

3) The use of the word "Unsaved"
Obviously in an encyclopaedia such language can seem quite out of place. But we need to remember that this word is essential in understanding Finney's work, as well as its use in the evangelical world generally. Finney's ministry was about saving souls, so therefore when opponents speak about him, they speak of people being "saved". I personally cannot believe that a man who believed such things could be "saved", and neither can a large amount of evangelical Christians who have studied his teachings. Given the nature of the article itself and the divergent opinions of Finney's state of eternal rest amongst evangelicals, I beleive that it was suitable to use the word.

4) The problem of Finney's Arminianism
This issue concerns whether or not Finney fitted into the theological box called "Arminianism". The fact that he may have denied it does not mean he was not Arminian. From one point of view Finney was. From another point of view he was not. Since Wikipedia is about accurate sharing of information, it would have been better if the issue had been examined and explained in the article in more detail, with both sides of the argument being put forward. What has happened instead is that my contribution to the article which said that he "embraced Arminianism" has been erased. It would have been better had it been changed to "Many people believe that Finney embraced Arminianism, while others do not..." and then explain the argument. Instead the sentence was erased and the current article does not address this issue at all.

So I'll say it more simply for anyone else who is reading this. If you have a different opinion about Finney's stance on Arminianism, then simply add that opinion to the article itself rather than erase the information that is already there.

(As for Finney's stand on the Perseverence of the Saints, I will quote from his own words in his Systematic Theology: "The Christian, therefore, is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys; or Antinomianism is true. Until he repents, he cannot be forgiven. In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground." - Lecture 9, Unity of Moral action. That to me finishes the argument. Where in Chapter 34 is your proof?)

5. Personal attacks
I will refrain from making any personal attack upon the unknown person who I am currently disagreeing with. Wiki is no place for Flaming or Trolling. I will make the plea that the unknown person please contribute to the article rather than taking away from it, as a lack of information serves nobody. I do not believe that I am being typically "Calvinist" by reporting things to the authorities - I just think I'm being a good Wiki contributer who honestly believes that an article is being badly handled by an outsider who still refuses to get themselves a login name. I do not, however, appreciate being called a person who "parrots their lack of knowledge", "uninformed", a person who deliberately mischaracterises someone for my own interests, and other things. If I disagree with someone, I try to talk it out with them. Unfortunately there has been no effort on part of the unknown person to talk this through and work on the article together. Instead it has been cut and paste, personal insults and lack of factual references to back up assertions. Neilinoz 09:47, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

According to the Wiki guidelines, we should now both request mdeiation. According to their policy:

"Requests for mediation

It is always preferable for both parties to the dispute to request mediation. If possible please agree between you to request mediation before adding a request to this page. However, if you feel unable to approach the other party or feel that a mediator is needed to get an agreement to mediation then please ask."

I shall be taking this step. It would be best if you did the same. Neilinoz 09:56, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've changed this page over to the more usual "top down" format of conversation on Wikipedia - it makes it a lot easier to follow the discussion.
I'm a member of the mediation committee and would like to help. I have almost no knowledge of the subject - but that shouldn't be a problem as my role would not be to make decisions on content, but rather to help you find a solution both can agree on. Would you both be willing to accept me as mediator? If so, would you be happy to continue on this page? Mediation can be totally private, but as this is a content dispute rather than a personal one, I think this page would be a better place to start.
An alternative would be to continue discussing between the two of you - perhaps with input from other interested Wikipedians. It's quite early for mediation, but you might decide that early mediation would be a help here. Regards -- sannse (talk) 10:52, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad for any mediator. Being new to Wiki I don't entirely know all the processes. If you'd like someone who knows the content, check with people who have contributed to Christian articles.

As I've stated before, I'm happy for a divergent point of view to be included in the article because of its encyclopaedic nature. I'm not happy for analysis of Finney to be erased, however. I'm hoping that the unknown person will come around and see how he/she can contribute to the article rather than taking away from it.
Neilinoz 20:36, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Neilinoz. If 140... is also happy for me to act as mediator we can give it a go. Regards -- sannse (talk) 18:26, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, 140... hasn't turned up yet. What happens now? If we move to allow my situation to stand, then I'll go on and revert the page to my original status. But there's always a chance that 140... will turn up again and change it again. It's not up to me to ban users, but I have this feeling that 140... might not be as bad as some that needed banning. I suppose I have this gut feeling that 140... might be a bit more reasonable after a while. And if you're reading this 140..., please feel free to contribute because, as my original message on this article showed, I actually want a pro-Finney person who knows about him to help with the article's construction.
Neilinoz 23:01, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know who 140 is, but I have read a number of Finney's books, although it was over 20 years ago. I was heavily influenced by Keith Green and spent two years in Lindale, Texas working for another para church organization closely tied to Last Days Ministries back in the early 1980's. I also think that applying the term "unsaved" to Charles Finney was inappropriate. Would you also apply that term to Methodists, Church of the Nazarene, Church of God, Holiness, Salvation Army, Assembly of God, and others with Wesleyan roots? I think we can differ on our theological views and still be saved. It is Jesus who saves, not having perfect theology, which I think no one has.
Here are some links to articles by Charles Finney which were paraphrased by Keith Green & others and used as ministry tracts. I read all of these years ago and found them helpful in my Christian walk. I am not a theologian, but if 140 doesn't show up, I will attempt to help you write the article. I will have to take some time to brush up however, as none of this is fresh in my mind right now. H2O 13:02, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Breaking up the Fallow Ground
Devotions or Devotion
God Comes to New York
How to Be a Witness for the Right Side
How to Overcome Sin
How to Preach without Results
The Backslider in Heart
True and False Conversion
I think the first thing to do is put aside any thought of banning. I see nothing more here that a mild edit war - one a lot more civilised than many on Wikipedia! I hope that 140.. will be back to contribute, but welcome H2O's offer to help out with a different view point in the mean time.
The main thing to remember in this is the principle of NPOV - that's what we are aiming for here. The ideal article is one that both sides can agree on as accurate. Our job here is to find wording that both can agree on.
Neilinoz, perhaps you could consider a different approach to reverting. Have a look at 140..'s version of the article. Is there anything there that you completely agree with? For example, some of the biographical information seems uncontroversial. Use the history facility to look at the edits in turn and pick out those bits of his changes that you agree with. Restore your version but do so by adding your changes to 140..'s version - leaving all those changes of his that you agree with. This is a bit more work that a quick cut and paste but is a good way to start on a neutral version. The next thing to do is list here the pieces of 140..'s version that you removed or changed. Then we can look at those and discuss them.
How does that sound? -- sannse (talk) 20:32, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I will be glad to help, but will be out of town for a few days, so no help from me until next week. H2O 22:25, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks guys for turning up.

H20, I also am a Keith Green fan and there is no way that I would class the list of people and organisations you have as being unchristian. I think Keith was misled about Finney, though. I honestly believe that Finney was not a believer, but that those who appreciate him are believers - albeit misled. Look at Horton's article and you will find that Finney did not believe in the Biblical doctrine of the atonement "the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one" he says.

But I'm not here to argue this particular point - I appreciate that there are many who love Finney. But you have to understand that a growing amount of evangelical theologians in America and around the world are finding his beliefs to be heterodox - unchristian.

Most of these theologians are Calvinist in nature. So on one hand you have evangelical Calvinists who say that Finney was a heretic, and on the other you have non-Calvinist evangelical theologians who think he was great.

Since this is the situation, the Wiki article on Finney must reflect this divide of opinion. There must be information on the page that outlines the opinions and arguments of both points of view. When I made my initial changes, I put links in to websites that were critical of Finney's theology. But I knew that this was an encyclopaedia and so I asked for help in links that were supportive of Finney, as well as input from those who like Finney. All I'm trying to do is to give as much information to the reader as I can.

Sannse, it's nice to know that this "edit war" is mild!

I don't think I have any problem with what 140... added - just what he/she took away. As I said I was unaware of any actual writing he/she actually did, so when I did revert the article back to its original state I inadvertently removed some historical info that 140... had put in. I haven't read the exact stuff 140.. put in but I'm sure I won't have any problems with it.

So what I'll do is this: I'll use the history thingy to find out what 140 wrote and I'll re-insert it back into the article. I'll then re-insert my section on questioning Finney's theology, but insert a reminder that this is a work in progress. With H2O's help we should then be able to write a section that objectively outlines what Finney believed, why some Christians have great trouble with it, and some stuff that critiques modern Calvinists over this issue. How does all this sound?

Neilinoz 00:16, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's great Neilinoz. I think this is the right approach. You are completely right of course that the article needs both points of view, that's the key to a neutral article. Combining the two versions will help to clarify many of the disputed areas I think - simply because they aren't really in dispute. Then we can look at those areas that are in dispute, such as the Arminian/Calvinist area.

One other suggestion - when you reinsert your paragraph try to add some more information on who said what. Who said he "..was not only heterodox in his theology, but also "unsaved" because of it"? Can you find a relevant quote from an authority that gives this viewpoint? Can you find a quote by Finney showing that he did not agree with the concept of original sin? Which modern theologians have linked his ideas to Pelagianism? The idea is that we report what is argued on both sides of a dispute and who argues it, rather than making judgements ourselves on which is the correct view.

-- sannse (talk) 16:37, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The links to the Horton and Hodge articles on Finney pretty much explain in detail these assertions, but I will add a lot more detail when I get around to it. Horton is the one who explicitly questions Finney's eternal state.

140... where are you? Despite what has happened it would be great if you could contribute.

-- Neilinoz 22:25, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Neilinoz, looks like you haven't had time to merge the two articles - there's never enough time to do all this stuff is there :) In the mean time I hope others will contribute to the article. I will keep it on my watch list for now. I'm going to hide the mediation notice, but leave it visible during editing. Anyone editing - please don't revert to earlier versions, but feel free to add more information at any time. If you feel you need to remove information or significantly change the meaning then please be sure to discuss that on this talk page. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 18:55, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Sannse, Yeah I've been pretty busy lately so I haven't had time (new job). I will make the effort soon. It also gives 140... some time to view what is going on since I have the feeling he/she has given up for a while.

--Neilinoz 01:06, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Finally I get lots of time to make the article up. I'm not happy with it and I think that there are some bland statements that need more than just touching up. I think I have outlined the anti-Finney arguments quite well and I have quoted from his Systematic Theology to point these out. I have also taken away all the anti-Finney links and replaced them with one link to a page that has a whole lot of links to articles that are critical of Finney's theology.

I also decided to add a section on Finney's place in America's social history - sort of an attempt to "de-spiritualize" his work and place it historically as part of America's religious tradition. Since I am not American (but have studied US history) I may have got some things wrong so please feel free to change them.

Of course the article's greatest problem is that, while it contains information as to why some Evangelicals find Finney seriously wrong, there is no arguments that, as yet, refute these. I appreciate that in an NPOV article there needs to be balance, and I invite all people with knowledge of Finney to carefully produce some pro-Finney stuff to insert into the text.

If you are reading this then you have probably concluded that there was a major difference of opinion between myself and another contributor. If you read my comments carefully, you will realise that, while I do not support Finney and that I, like Horton and Sproul, believe that he was not a true Christian, I nevertheless do wish for a detailed and objective support of his theology. I do not, however, like it when people delete my work because they disagree with me.

--Neilinoz 14:28, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I added a brief mention of his extemporaneous preaching - hopefully it is balanced :-)

Please note that Neilinoz has changed his moniker to: One Salient Oversight 10:38, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The changes seem to be being accepted, so I don't think continued mediation is necessary. I've removed the mediation notice and will take this article off my watch-list. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation is still available if problems arise again, or please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for other advice on solving disputes. One Salient Oversight - thanks for your time in discussions here. Regards -- sannse (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

Most of the quotation links were broken, which I've begun to fix. Also, some of the quotations were very misleading. For example, one quote before I edited was:

"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 again into their former state."

The complete quotation was:

"While I inculcated the common views, 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 again into their former state. I seldom saw, and can now understand that I had no reason to expect to see, under the instructions which I then gave, such a state of religious principle, such steady and confirmed walking with God among Christians, as I have seen since the change in my views and instructions."

I was pretty shocked at whoever it was that pasted the quote in but omitted the "while I inculcated the common views" clause. That totally changes the meaning of the quotation! The quotation from "Conformity to this World" was his speaking about revivals in general, not to his particular converts.

As a general rule, I think we should be more fair in quoting Finney. I realize that he's utterly despised by many Reformed people, but that shouldn't be a reason to slander the man.

Also, the section on controversies in his theology was quite anti-Finney and far too simplistic. I've expanded the quotations to provide some context and added a lot of other flesh that will be more fair to his views.

While I don't agree with everything that Finney taught, I've read a lot of his material, including all of his Systematic Theology. It doesn't take much reading of him to see that the previous article misrepresented many of his teachings.

--Phil48, 2 June 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil48 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 2 June 2005

Removal of Kyle's contributions

It is with regret that I removed all of Kyle's contributions. It wasn't that I disagreed with him, it is just that the section was a little bit too "off-beam" to be relevant. It seemed like a comment made from a Calvinist pov, which is not really useful in this article.

If anything, the contribution needs to be tightened up in terms of words, and placed in the criticisms section.

--One Salient Oversight 01:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kyle please read this before continuing

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with your additions. Much of the criticism of Charles Finney is present in the text and your contributions actually don't add much to it.

Moreover, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, rather than a place to air particular points of view. The article itself must be written from a Neutral Point Of View (NPOV). While your additions are scholarly and researched, they still have a pov attached to them.

I'm not trying to silence the critique on Finney - much of this article was written by myself and describes some of the criticisms in great detail. But if you read the way I have written, the criticisms are described rather than written in a way to convince the reader of a particular point of view.

Please feel free to continue our discussion below:

--One Salient Oversight 23:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A review of the authors statement of Finney's theology

While Finney maybe a "Calvinist" in his theology, or his metaphysics, one does not find his theology displayed in the manner in which he conducted his activities, this being his ethics. Therefore we are left to consider him to be an intellectual "Calvinist". This is evident from his own words concerning revivals. Finney says a revival is not a miracle . . . It is a purely philosophic [i.e. scientific] result of the right use of the constituted means. In Finney’s words, “It is not a miracle, or dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means--as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means.” (Lectures on Revivals of Religion) He further compares it to the farmer’s use of scientific method to draw forth a crop of wheat from the field. Therefore we must assume that since his metaphysics and his ethics differ and ethics must follow from and are a result of ones metaphysics the “Calvinite” doctrines ascribed to him are not the actual doctrines he held.


The argument can be made that Finney only adhered to certain “Calvinistic” doctrines and did not adhere to the full five points as fleshed out at the Synod of Dort. These five points are often called “the five point of Calvinism” or referred to in the acronym T.U.L.I.P. Whether Finney held one or more of those points of doctrine matters only if he held all five. One of the greatest criticisms of the five points of Calvinism is their interdependent character. The T.U.L.I.P. is like a chain, if one link is removed what ever the chain holds falls, if one point is denied the other four points will fall apart; you must embrace all five or deny all five. Therefore, if Finney as is supposed actually believed in three of these point he had to believe in the other two and therefore his ethics would follow.

Finney’s ethics could have flowed out of Calvinism because one point which is essential to the doctrines of Calvinism and is the first point in the T.U.L.I.P. Total Depravity. Under this doctrine man is unable in himself to turn toward God because his free will is bound to sin and he is a slave to sin. [John 8:34] The doctrine of total depravity limns man as unable not merely unwilling to respond to God, thus, there must be a supernatural act of God’s grace to change a man’s heart. This is because as John 8:34 and a host of other verses note man is in slaved to sin; his master being Satan.

The depravity of man and his subsequent inability to turn toward God with out God first working in him stands in stark contrast to the methods by which Finney operated. His long drawn out alter calls, the ‘anxious bench’ and the sweltering conditions of his tent meetings were all factors, which as we have seen, Finney thought to be part of the conversion process, led men to decide to become Christians. Like the leaders of the Keswick Convention in England, Finney was passionate and persuasive truly desiring to see men and women brought into the kingdom of God.

“In a letter to Finney dated December 25, 1834, James Boyle asked these questions:
‘Let us look over the fields where you and others and myself have labored as revival ministers and what is now their moral state? What was their state 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 had fallen and fallen very soon after we first departed from among them.’" (MacArthur)

Yet, still we see in his own correspondence a realization of how few converts were actually won. From this we see him speak of men as if they were saved but have fallen away from the very grace that they had chosen. This is another of the five doctrines of grace or Calvinism called ‘assurance of the believer’ or ‘preservation of the saints’ which Finney denies. Furthermore, in John F. MacArthur notes that Finney denied the depravity of man but as is often stated he was a promulgator of “Decision Theology” which states that man is able of his own volition to choose God. This is nothing new; it was not an innovation of Finney. It was in 417 that the Council of Carthage ruled this heretical and demanded the recantation of a man by the name of Pelagius. As we have discussed it would be many years later when the followers of Arminius brought a modified version of Pelagianism to the Synod of Dort which were rejected as heretical. These doctrines came to be known as Semipelagianism or more commonly Arminianism which the author says Finney claimed to reject. As the savior said we shall know a tree by its fruit. Sources used:

MacArthur, J.F. The Nature of Saving Faith

Finney, C.G. Lectures on Revivals of Religion, Lecture 1

What makes it neutral

I understand that I am persuasive in he manner in which I right, but is this not the nature of truth? I have not understood this, I have been told this by professors. I feel if I am to write in a "neutral" manner I must write as if there is no truth. I simply want to show what is really happening. No matter what my view of "calvinism" is what I read about "Calvinism" does not match nor logically lead to the meathods that were used. Is the problem not what points I make but the way I put them forth. I do not understand. Generally truth tends to be pushy because it does not allow one to err from it. Please let me know. Kyle Mullaney —Preceding unsigned comment added by 01:26, 4 April 2005 (talk • contribs) Kyle.Mullaney

Have you been editing Wikipedia for long? I know that you, like me, would prefer to assert certain truths in definite language. Unfortunately, being a publically controlled encyclopedia means that the language has to be "toned down", and things that you know to be true have to worded carefully. It's actually quite easy when you get used to it.
Let me give you an example. Finney did not claim to be an Arminian, but the fact is that his beliefs confirm him as one. More than that, a careful examination of his works actually show him to be Pelagian. Now I could write it as follows:
Finney did not claim to be Arminian but he was wrong. Everything he said shows that he was Arminian, and denied the Bible. Worse than that, he totally denied original sin. How can someone do this and be called a Christian? He obviously wasn't - he was a false teacher.
But that would be torn apart here at Wikipedia. So we need to tone it down a bit. Here's how it should be re-written:
Finney claimed to not be Arminian, but it is not certain what this claim entails. An analysis of Finney's works shows some theological understanding - such as the freedom of the individual to reject God's grace - that is synonymous with Arminian theology. Some Christians have even labeled Finney a "Pelagian" because his teachings seem to clearly imply that the doctrine original sin is incorrect. As a result of this, many theologians today have concluded that Finney's teaching was heterodox.
Now the advantage of the second paragraph over the first one is that it is written in a very "encyclopedic" manner. The language and emphasis used is not biased in any way. However, what it does communicate to the reader is that there are some things about Finney which need careful examination. As a result of this factual presentation, the reader may, in fact, do his/her own research and conclude that he is, in fact, a false teacher.
Now this may sound all secretive and manipulative - however it really is not. Another person who is a Finney fan is allowed to come along and write another sentence that supports Finney - in an obviously neutral manner. This is actually good, for it gives the reader the chance to do more research.
I now this might be hard - I am an English teacher so words and sentences are actually very important to me. Try your contribution again, except this time try to change the language to be more neutral. I will come in again and see what it is like. But rather than revert it, I will make some changes myself. By the way, if you're unhappy about this editing process, please understand that this is how Wikipedia works. Everything we contribute to Wikipedia becomes public domain knowledge and is not "ours".
--One Salient Oversight 04:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Atonement (Governmental view)

I removed a brief paragraph on the criticisms of Horton & Sproul re: the governmental view of the atonement. Those comments are probably more apropo on the page for that subject (although they still were in sore need of reference & context), and did not specifically address Finney's take. He was not the originator of that view, but did embrace it & modify it to his own theological hermeneutic. KHM03 17:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aug 05 revisions

The theology section is looking a bit better. I moved the paragraph about Calvinist objections to the end of the section rather than the beginning; let's explain the man's beliefs fairly before mentioning that a few people object to them. The section could still use some condensation of Finney's views rather than extended quotes. KHM03 19:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The theology section still reads very POV to me. I added a template. It needs work; Finney's theology ought to be looked at as it is (was) first, and only then (briefly) compared with conservative Calvinism. KHM03 19:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Sect-POV and Original Research

Howdy. Don't know a thing about Charles, but I can see a good article in the making. :) I found my way here after doing some research on Susan B. Anthony and the First Unitarian Church of Rochester, NY. I removed the POV tag (which was inexplicably placed in the middle of the article), and replaced it with a sect-POV tag. Also, I added the Original Resarch tag to that section, which covers the components of the text which are pretty unencyclopedic in their bias and non-neutral voice. However, we cannot just leave these tags in articles forever. If I don't see that the biased text is being improved and redacted to create a better article, I'll have to remove text wholesale to leave an article that obeys Wikipedia's official policies. Thanks in advance for your work. --NightMonkey 21:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Influence from Edwards

I found the following quote in the article very interesting: "Theologically, Finney drew elements from the eighteenth century American preacher, Jonathan Edwards and the New Divinity Calvinists." I have read much about and by both men (mostly Edwards) and am not familiar with this influence. If this theological influence could be specified and documented I think it would increase the value of the article. I am aware of the similarities (and differences in their approaches to revival, but have not discovered this theological influence. Would be grateful for elaboration.--Loudguy 20:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Finney and Calvinism

Whilst Finney taught that man had a natural ability to respond to God, he also taught that God had predestined some to salvation and others to damnation. God, according to Finney exerts persuasive influence by the Holy Spirit upon all men, but only sufficient influence upon some, the elect. God knows how much influence he can wisely exert upon a person. Finney's system is complex but it is much closer to Calvinism than to Arminianism or Pelagianism. God according to Finney converts people through moral influence. His evangelistic methods, therefore are in line with this belief. Sinful men, knowing the truth, but denying it, are brought under the spotlight of God's word and their sin exposed; at this point Finney pressed for conversion. Finney saw a much closer relationship between the means of conversion (preacher, message) than Calvinism normally allows - the Holy Spirit uses the means to bring about the conversion. Finney does not deny total depravity; he denies that depravity is a physical condition needing a physical remedy. For Finney depravity is moral and consists in the fixed intention of the will to serve self. The word of God is able to break this fixedness in the elect. The new birth is moral - a change in character, not physical - a change in nature.

There is plenty of good material about Finney available on the web; MacArthur and Horton are really not the most reliable sources.

One further point is that Finney saw evangelical or saving faith as a turning away from self, to Christ, or from sin to holiness. For Finney there could be no division of the will. You either intend your own good as an ultimate end, or the good of God and the universe. Finney did not see new birth, repentance, faith etc as an order of salvation, but as different ways of describing the same thing.

Darren —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.45.40 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 16 August 2006

Finney not calvinist

FINNEY in his book Religious Revivals wrote that he had to undo the "calvinist old myths" believed by someone he tried to bring to Jesus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.5.185 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 12 November 2006

{{Sofixit}}. Part Deux 19:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that Finney was a puritan religion. Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 09:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I know this isn't right...

I know that Chuck Norris wasn't a break off of "Millerism," (great man though he is), but I'm not sure what is supposed to go there (1870). If someone with more time could fix that, it would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gambit737 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 22 February 2007

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Charles Grandison Finney → Charles Finney — Much more common name: it's the name used in literature: google search confirms as much Part Deux 19:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support as nom Part Deux 19:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose ANB lists him as Charles Grandison Finney, and calls him, in other articles, either that or Charles G. Finney. The initial may be most common, but is ambiguous with the author, and harder to find and link to. Who calls him Charles Finney, simpliciter? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 18:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Short On Details

While I appreciate the discussion of theology, I'd like to see it attached to more biographical and historical description. For example, in articles about John Bunyan I've appreciated reading details about his imprisonments, how he went from a new believer to a preacher, and how he caught the illness from which he died. Even though I was born and bred in America, I don't know enough about the 19th century American city. Did Finney meet Calvinists in daily life, or was this a war of the press? What was a revival like? The anxiety bench was an interesting detail, but I want more. How did Finney die, and how typical was it of other preachers or other American men of that time? This is another reason, beside documentation, to encourage someone to mention sources. 71.206.221.118 23:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)



Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Grandison_Finney/Archive_1&oldid=410234935"