From: spk@aber.ac.uk (Stephen Peter Kingston)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Sanctification, sinlessness and C.G. Finney.
Date: 1 Oct 92 11:52:33 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Wales at Aberystwyth

Dan Graham wrote:

>   As wonderful a man as
> Johnathan Edwards was, Finney was a reprobate.

Dan, I agree that there were problems with Finney's theology,  but to call 
him a reprobate seems to me to be unjust.

Finney was a man who saw revival in one of his meetings, and every other 
meeting he held saw tremendous fruit. Finney did more for the Christian 
church of his day then any other man.

Regrettably, he seems to have been somewhat confused on certain subjects,
notably on his beliefs on what constituted revival,  his understanding of his
own Baptism with the Holy Spirit, and his views of sinless perfection.

However, there was good in his theology too. I enjoyed reading a number of
his sermons, which often pinpoint man's depraved state with a refreshing 
clarity.

I believe if the Calvinism of his day had not been so lifeless then he would
not have so savagely attacked the Calvinists. It is noticeable that his 
theology has a curious blend of Calvinism and Arminianism, which I 
do not believe to be correct, but certainly set me to thinking very hard 
about some issues.

A friend of Finney's once said that Finney never felt at home unless he
was in a fight. Finney also seemed a little too convinced he was correct
in these fights, and would often come away satisfied he had won his point,
when it was not at all clear he had done so.

However, there was no doubt he was an intelligent man, and certainly part
of God's elect, and not reprobate.

> Finney did not believe in original sin.  He taught that children were not
> sinful by nature, but, being on their own, did develop selfishness ...

This is not my understanding of Finney's view. Finney said that the first 
moral choice of any child would be selfish, and his understanding of 
original sin was that we will all choose selfishly by our inherited sin 
nature. 

He also expected that the first moral choice of a child came * very * 
quickly after birth.

>  In Finney's theology, the work of the Spirit had no place. 

I agree, Finney seriously undervalued the work of the Spirit. This was, I
think, a reaction to a dead Calvinism prevalent in his day. It is most 
unfortunate that he could let those circumstances influence his theology.

> He
> first believed in a "second work of grace," that enabled a man to be
> sinless, but later, changed his mind and said that man could do this
> completely by himself.

Finney was very unclear on this issue because he did not understand the 
nature of revival (Wesley had the same problem). Finney received the 
Baptism with the Spirit, and also saw a true revival. Because of this he 
noticed that people who received the Spirit in this powerful way tended 
not to sin.

However, this was not the Spirit of sanctification, as he thought, nor a 
second work of grace as Wesley taught. These people did not sin because 
the church was revived. However, clearly as the revival ebbed people 
began to sin (or maybe people sinned and so revival ebbed away). 

Finney was now confronted with a dilemma. He had taught sinless perfection,
but he could see that the SPirit had not truly wrought perfection. It is 
clear to see why a man like Finney thus tied himself in some knots over
this issue.

> Dan Graham
All the best,
  Stephen.
-- 
Gweleis i rac neb nym gweles pop annwyl. ef diwyl yneges. Gweleis i pasc.
(I saw the one above all men,  he saw me;  he, the beloved of his people,
who fulfills his mission. I saw Easter.) "Yspeil Taliesin" ---Taliesin---
spk@uk.ac.aber --- spk%uk.ac.aber@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk --- Stephen Kingston
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU