Talk:Charles Grandison Finney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charles Grandison Finney article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Ohio Portal Charles Grandison Finney is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Talk:Charles Grandison Finney / archive 1

Contents 1 Expanded quotes, fixed links 2 Removal of Kyle's contributions 3 Kyle please read this before continuing 3.1 A review of the authors statement of Finney's theology 4 What makes it neutral 5 Atonement (Governmental view) 6 Aug 05 revisions 7 Sect-POV and Original Research 8 Influence from Edwards 9 Finney and Calvinism 10 Finney not calvinist 11 I know this isn't right... 12 Requested move 12.1 Survey 12.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 12.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 13 Short On Details

[edit] Expanded quotes, fixed links

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] Requested move

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)

[edit] 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)