Many consider Charles Finney the greatest revivalist in American history. He held revival meetings mostly before the Civil War. Outpourings of the Spirit, conversions, and dedications were noteworthy. Transformations of whole towns and cities in New York state were especially noteworthy. Finney was also a great abolitionist and opposed slavery with great passion. He served as President of Oberlin College in Ohio, which joined in the fight. His life had parallels to Jonathan Blanchard, the founding President of Wheaton College who also fought for liberation.
Finney on Revival
Many years ago, I read Finney’s Lectures on Revival. Then I read his autobiography. Both were amazing. However, I did not read his Systematic Theology. I thought his theology was like John Wesley and the Methodists, and did not have the motivation to read it. Over 40 years ago, I mentioned it to Asher Intrater when he was taking the systematic theology course in our Bible college. He read it and liked it. I knew Finney to be a radical Arminian, one who rejects predestination, and affirms that we are saved by a free choice to embrace Yeshua or to reject him and not by any predetermination by God.
A friend of mine, Harold Eberley, wrote Systematic Theology and noted that he and Finney were aligned on the issue of free will. His volumes are worth reading and considering. Because Harold mentioned Finney in positive way, I thought I would read the volume. Generally, my Reformed friends pan Finney and do not think he has must to say in theology.
Radical Free Will Christianity
In many ways, Finney’s volume is not like the usual systematic theology, but more of a philosophical theology. It is somewhat redundant. A great bulk of the book deals with human freedom. Finney is sometimes understood as Pelagian, that we are so free as Pelagius taught, that human good works chosen in human freedom by our own powers are important to our salvation. If one does not read more closely, you could think Finney is teaching this, but he is not. He argues for a radical view of human free choice even with unbelievers who can choose good or evil. However, without saying yes to the grace of God offered in Yeshua human beings cannot be saved. Only the work fo the Spirit in grace makes that choice possible.
Rejecting the Doctrine of Original Sin
This is tied to a second important distinction in Finney. He rejects the doctrine of original sin. He does not accept that the sin nature is born into us from Adam. That all have sinned Is not due to a constitutional or physical sin nature. Rather, sin came into the world and now dominates culture or society such that all human begins succumb to sin and need deliverance through Messiah. However, in practice Finney’s doctrine is not very different from those who believe that human nature is “bent” after the fall (see C. S. Lewis on this) but not so bent that free choice and the image of God are obliterated. The choice for Yeshua is in such teachers only possible due to his empowering grace. One can then say yes or no.
Entire Sanctification
The other major emphasis in Finney is the doctrine of entire sanctification. The Methodists also held to this view; and I will here explain it. I expected Finney to argue like Wesley that there is an experience in the Spirit, the baptism in the Spirit, that brings us to a place were we cannot sin again (perfectionism). Finney experienced the baptism in the Spirit and used the term. But Finney did not speak about this as a key to sanctification in his book. Some of my friends reading this know that some of the early Pentecostals influenced by Methodism held to entire sanctification as the most important aspect of the baptism in the Spirit. A large part of Finney’s book is given to proving that the Bible urges that we be entirely sanctified in body, soul and Spirit. (I Thess. 5:23) Faith in the power of God given to us on the basis of the cross, resurrection and the gift of the Spirit enables this possibility. Because this was not taught and understood, Finney believed that Christians lived on a much lower plane then was possible. Finney believed that Christians could embrace a life so as to sin no more.
A Messianic Jewish Response
How do I respond as a Messianic Jew. It might be that Finney’s doctrine of sin, the fall and original sin opens up a door for dialogue with the Jewish community which also rejects the doctrine as taught in Catholic theology and Reformed theology. Secondly, I think we do need to reflect and be challenged by Finney’s robust defense of free will. Thirdly, the greatest benefit from studying Finney is to see that we can by faith attain much more sanctification and righteousness in this life than most believe. I was not convinced of sinlessness as a possibility in this life but do believe that was we seek to walk in the Spirit and submit to his Word, a much greater level of sanctification is attainable than many believe.