His ministry was in my area and he left little behind..they claimed salvation at the altar and then went away (thats what happens when Salvation is not all of God) ...Do not compare his theology to Calvin's, Finney's Theology was not Christian. He left a legacy of wood,hay and stubble..
Hence the term "burned over district". - His ministry in Rochester, while strong was frought with episodes of what could only be described as "interesting". In one instance, he proclaimed that he would not serve communion to a slaveholder. I find the comment disconcerting in that a slaveholder seeking communion from an abolishonist preacher, in a northern Church, in a town where Douglass was revered, was more than likely repentant.
Upstate holds an interesting place in Prot growth in the states, most notably a result of the canal system (completed in 1825). Mormonisms founder, Smith resided outside of Town, in Palmyra very near the Hill Cumorrah(SP) where he claimed to see the angel "Moroni". JW's Russell was editor of a local religious paper with a man by the name of Barker. The two came into disagreement and Russell split and created the "watchtower". Finney of course had ties to the area, and of course, Free Methodism began in Pekin, NY. The founder (B.T. Roberts) is buried about a mile from my home, just adjacent to what was Chesborough Seminary and is now Roberts Wesleyan College / North Eastern Seminary.
That's how Clinton excuses what he does. "Mistakes". LOL!!
God doesn't view it that way: Jude 13.
Charles Finney and "Decision Theology"
Who's Finney? What's So Wrong With Finney's Theology? Here are some excerpts of a paper (linked below) about him:
"Reacting against the pervasive Calvinism of the Great Awakening, the successors of that great movement of God's Spirit turned from God to humans, from the preaching of **objective content** (namely, Christ and him crucified) to the emphasis on getting a person to "make a decision."
One result of Finney's revivalism was ... His "New Measures" ... the "anxious bench">/b> (**precursor to today's altar call**), EMOTIONAL TACTICS that led to fainting and weeping, and other "excitments," as Finney and his followers called them.
As the Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield pointed out so eloquently, there are two religions throughout history: Heathenism--of which Pelagianism is a religious expression--and supernatural redemption. And with Warfield and those who so seriously warned their brothers and sisters of these errors among Finney and his successors, we too must come to terms with the wildly heterodox strain in American Protestantism. With roots in Finney's revivalism, perhaps evangelical and liberal Protestantism are not that far apart after all. His "New Measures," like today's church growth movement, made human choices and emotions the center of the church's ministry, ridiculed theology, and replaced the preaching of Christ with the preaching of conversion.
"We sin because we're sinners": the condition of sin determines the acts of sin, rather than vice versa. But Finney followed Pelagius, the 5th-century heretic, who was condemned by more church councils than any other person in church history, in denying this doctrine.
Instead, Finney believed that human beings were capable of choosing whether they would be corrupt by nature or redeemed, referring to original sin as an "anti-scriptural and nonsensical dogma" (p.179). In clear terms, Finney denied the notion that human beings possess a sinful nature (ibid.). Therefore, if Adam leads us into sin, not by our inheriting his guilt and corruption, but by following his poor example, this leads logically to the view of Christ, the Second Adam, as saving by example. This is precisely where Finney takes it, in his explanation of the atonement.
The first thing we must note about the atonement, Finney says, is that Christ could not have died for anyone else's sins than his own. His obedience to the law and his perfect righteousness were sufficient to save him, but could not legally be accepted on behalf of others. That Finney's whole theology is driven by a passion for moral improvement is seen on this very point: "If he [Christ] had obeyed the Law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non of our salvation?" (p.206).
In other words, why would God insist that we save ourselves by our own obedience if Christ's work was sufficient? The reader should recall the words of St. Paul in this regard, "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing." It would seem that Finney's reply is one of agreement. The difference is, he has no difficulty believing both of those premises.
That is not entirely fair, of course, because Finney did believe that Christ died for something--not for someone, but for something. In other words, he died for a purpose, but not for people. The purpose of that death was to reassert God's moral government and to lead us to eternal life by example, as Adam's example excited us to sin. Why did Christ die? God knew that "The atonement would present to creatures the highest possible motives to virtue. Example is the highest moral influence that can be exerted...If the benevolence manifested in the atonement does not subdue the selfishness of sinners, their case is hopeless" (p.209).
Therefore, we are not helpless sinners who need to be redeemed, but wayward sinners who need a demonstration of selflessness so moving that we will be excited to leave off selfishness. Not only did Finney believe that the "moral influence" theory of the atonement was the chief way of understanding the cross; he explicitly denied the substitutionary atonement, which "...assumes that the atonement was a literal payment of a debt, which we have seen does not consist with the nature of the atonement...It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one" (p.217).
Then there is the matter of applying redemption. Throwing off the Calvinistic orthodoxy of the older Presbyterians and Congregationalists, Finney argued strenuously against the belief that the new birth is a divine gift, insisting that "regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness to love or benevolence," as moved by the moral influence of Christ's moving example (p.224). "Original or constitutional sinfulness, physical regeneration, and all their kindred and resulting dogmas, are alike subversive of the gospel, and repulsive to the human intelligence" (p.236).
Having nothing to do with original sin, a substitutionary atonement, and the supernatural character of the new birth, Finney proceeds to attack "the article by which the church stands or falls"--justification by grace alone through faith alone."
Go here to read the rest of the paper: The Legacy of Charles Finney by Michael S. Horton
MORE: