I was asked once if I would be willing to call Finney a heretic. The Presbyterian Church of his day thought that he was and he was tried for it. Who am I to second guess their judgement of their own?
In 1821, he became a Christian and almost immediately declared that he has been retained by God to "plead His cause." For the next eight years he held revival meetings in the Eastern States. For a short while he was the pastor of Second Presbyterian Church in New York City. However, He withdrew from the presbytery, rejecting the Presbyterian disciplinary system
http://www.global-impact.org/classical/cc110.html
These are all from original sources:
That gospel justification is not to be regarded as a forensic or judicial proceeding. Dr. Chalmers and those of his school hold that it is. But this is certainly a great mistake, as we shall see.
It is proper to say here, that Dr. Chalmers and those of his school do not intend that sinners are justified by their own obedience to law, but by the perfect and imputed obedience of Jesus Christ. They maintain that, by reason of the obedience to law which Christ rendered when on earth, being set down to the credit of elect sinners, and imputed to them, the law regards them as having rendered perfect obedience in him, or regards them as having perfectly obeyed by proxy, and therefore pronounces them just, uponcondition of faith in Christ. This they insist is properly a forensic or judicial justification. But this subject will come up more appropriately under another head.
Sinners cannot possibly be justified in any other sense. Upon certain conditions they may be pardoned and treated as just. But for sinners to beforensically pronounced just, is impossible and absurd.
As has been already said, there can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law. This is of course denied by those who hold that gospel justification, or the justification of penitent sinners, is of the nature of a forensic or judicial justification. They hold to the legal maxim, that what a man does by another he does by himself, and therefore the law regards Christ's obedience as ours, on the ground that he obeyed for us.
The doctrine of an imputed righteousness, or that Christ's obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption; to wit, that Christ owed no obedience to the law in his own person, and that therefore his obedience was altogether a work of supererogation, and might be made a substitute for our own obedience; that it might be set down to our credit, because he did not need to obey for himself....But if Christ owed personal obedience to the moral law, then his obedience could no more than justify himself. It can never be imputed to us.
Here's more of the best of Finney:
It is true that Finney could not conceal the instability of his converts from himself. Later he found a reason for it. It was because he had brought them only into traditional Christianity, and not into perfectionism. 'While I inculcated the common views, he says, meaning the common views as to an as yet imperfect sanctification, I was often instrumental in bringing Christians under great conviction, and into a state of temporary repentance and faith'it is thus that he speaks of his entire evangelistic work to 1836!but, he continues, 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 instruction 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.' " B. B. Warfield, Studies in Perfectionism
http://www.remembrancer.com/ace/bigtopITI.html
It was soon all too evident that Finney was not interested in the Westminster Standards, the basic statement of Presbyterian doctrine, and that his preaching was more or less combination of the New Haven theology - a radical modification of the theology of Jonathan Edwards, and common-sense case law typical of William Blackston. http://www.remembrancer.com/ace/KRGraceAlone.html
In a later work Finney expresses his rejection of sola gratia very clearly. In his Systematic Theology (1846) he wrote, "Regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness to love and benevolence; or, in other words, in turning from the supreme choice of self-gratification, to the supreme love of God and the equal love of his neighbor. Of course the subject of regeneration must be an agent in the work (p. 224)." As I said, Finney is clear and it is hard to misunderstand him here. Man is the agent of his own regeneration. A more blatant rejection of what the Scriptures teach about the new-birth and regeneration is hardly imaginable. Finney's Lazarus is capable of resurrecting himself, without God's help, thank you.
http://www.remembrancer.com/ace/KRGraceAlone.html
There are more than a few other pages that already refute Finney quite nicely, so I'll just list a few of them:
IMO, what is really needed is a critique of Finney's theology from a non-Calvinistic perspective.
Read Finney for yourself. Here's Finney's Systematic Theology:
In particular
Here's most of Finney's writings:
Some of the information on this page is (c) Alliance for Confessing Evangelicals
Copyright (c) 1998 - webmaster@douglasgilliland.com - All Rights Reserved