Charles Finney

[ITS]

Charles Finney has been heralded as both the "father of American evangelicalism" and the "father of a watered-down gospel." What is your view of Finney: his strengths and weaknesses, and his overall influence?

[Joanne]

Charles Finney has been heralded as both the "father of American evangelicalism" and the "father of a watered-down gospel." What is your view of Finney: his strengths and weaknessess, and his overall influence?

The Second Great Awakening was led by Charles G. Finney. His "New Measures" certainly moved thousands to confess their faith in Christ. My perspective on Finney though, moves beyond the pragmatic approach. Finney stressed the ability of man to choose, to make his own decision to come to faith. His definition of sin and sanctification also do not align well with Scripture. It is also noted that he changed his theology as he preached, allowing the main determinant to be the number of conversions there were. This weakens the message of the Gospel, Jesus' atonement for sin, the power of the Holy Spirit and the sovereignty of God. Finney's strengths though would need to include his association of the Christian life with social issues. He was instrumental in the anti-slavery issues as well as temperance movements.

[Steve]

Charles Finney has been heralded as both the "father of American evangelicalism" and the "father of a watered-down gospel." What is your view of Finney: his strengths and weaknessess, and his overall influence?

I believe Finney could be described as both. As an American evangelist, Finney did much to spread the gospel in the early 19th Century and had a major influence on many of the evangelists and preachers that followed in his footsteps. Many people came to Christ from his teaching and preaching during the revival that was sweeping the country during his time . However, from what I have read of him and his teachings, he did preach a "watered-down" gospel. A gospel that emphasized that one could make a decision to become a Christian, in other words, to Finney, regeneration followed the human decision.

[Kevin Chen]

Charles Finney has been heralded as both the "father of American evangelicalism" and the "father of a watered-down gospel." What is your view of Finney: his strengths and weaknessess, and his overall influence?

There is no doubt that Charles Finney has had tremendous influence on evangelicalism. On the positive side, his preaching resulted in many revivals and conversions. His evangelistic methods have shaped modern evangelism as well. Also, he was instrumental in calling to church to action in regards to social issues such as slavery. On the negative side, some of his theology is suspect. This is especially true in regards to his view of human nature and the atonement.

[Kevin Chen]

Charles Finney has been heralded as both the "father of American evangelicalism" and the "father of a watered-down gospel." What is your view of Finney: his strengths and weaknessess, and his overall influence?

I believe Finney could be described as both. As an American evangelist, Finney did much to spread the gospel in the early 19th Century and had a major influence on many of the evangelists and preachers that followed in his footsteps. Many people came to Christ from his teaching and preaching during the revival that was sweeping the country during his time . However, from what I have read of him and his teachings, he did preach a "watered-down" gospel. A gospel that emphasized that one could make a decision to become a Christian, in other words, to Finney, regeneration followed the human decision.

While I do agree that in some aspects Finney preached a watered-down gospel, I do not think that calling the unsaved to make a decision to become a Christian, in and of itself, constitutes theological compromise. In Scripture one can find many examples of God pleading with people to repent, or turn to God. Could one not say that God was essentially calling them to make a decision to turn to him? This is not to say anything about whether or not they are able to do it by their own strength. To be sure, other Scriptures do show the need for God?s grace in conversion, and calling people to repentance does not negate that.

[Floyd]

Finney can certainly be described as "the Father of American Evangelicalism." His method of revival movement and his passion to see his listeners have a personal experience with Jesus are distinctively evangelical. His innovation of the anxious bench and the seeking of a response to the message are clear forerunners to our current concepts and practices of the altar call. He was also able to utilize a message and method that cut through denominational barriers in order to forge a distinct theological position.

However, I think it is a bit overstated to accuse Finney of being "the Father of a watered-down Gospel." We have to remember that Finney is a trained lawyer and not a trained theologian. I think it is more accurate to say he is "the Father of a more flexable Gospel" in that he is able to build a bridge between Calvinist and Arminian thinkers. Finney is certainly not the most thorough theologian, but it does not seem that he ever sets out to be. His passion is as a revivalist, and he finds himself placed in the role of being a spokesman for his position.

[adamduchin]

Charles Finney has been heralded as both the "father of American evangelicalism" and the "father of a watered-down gospel." What is your view of Finney: his strengths and weaknesses, and his overall influence?

I haven't heard either of these "heralds", but I would have to say that it would be hard to put a finger on one individual as the father of evangelicalism. Finney had a lot to offer, particularly in the realm of "method." But his method seemed to push for "results", and not necessarliy "disciples." I'm not so sure that is the best thing. As to a "watered-down gospel" I would have to say that Finney used the gospel that he knew, which may be a slightly different gospel than what we might call the gospel today -- remember, though, that Finney's background and training was not in biblical theology, but in Law... a deeper biblical training might have helped his gospel line up with our critiques (but that's just my critique).

[adamduchin]

Finney can certainly be described as "the Father of American Evangelicalism." His method of revival movement and his passion to see his listeners have a personal experience with Jesus are distinctively evangelical. His innovation of the anxious bench and the seeking of a response to the message are clear forerunners to our current concepts and practices of the altar call. He was also able to utilize a message and method that cut through denominational barriers in order to forge a distinct theological position.

However, I think it is a bit overstated to accuse Finney of being "the Father of a watered-down Gospel." We have to remember that Finney is a trained lawyer and not a trained theologian. I think it is more accurate to say he is "the Father of a more flexable Gospel" in that he is able to build a bridge between Calvinist and Arminian thinkers. Finney is certainly not the most thorough theologian, but it does not seem that he ever sets out to be. His passion is as a revivalist, and he finds himself placed in the role of being a spokesman for his position.

I would agree wholeheartedly with the description of Finney and his method. I would give praise to the innovations that Finney brought, as well as his emphasis on personal encounter. However, I would still have to point out that Finney, along with all he brings to the table, was simply one step along the path to evangelicalism today.

Some borrow heavily from Finney's ideas and innovations, but maybe it is because we borrow heavily from somewhat of a "watered-down" (for lack of a better term) source that we still have somewhat of a "watered-down" gospel today. There are many today who are trying to do things like Finney and others were doing, and these are also people who do not have theological training.

I am not saying that you have to be a theologian to share the gespel; what I am saying, however, is that our churches today are going the way of the non-denominational (to try to bridge the gap), and in doing so we are losing ground when it comes to making true disciples of Jesus Christ instead of just gaining converts. There seems to be a move today to have churches that are palatable... that is just another way of saying "watered-down." You do not have to be a theologian, but you should not be afraid of theology -- Jesus is the heart of the gospel, but he is also the heart of theology.

[Rebecca]

Charles Finney has been heralded as both the "father of American evangelicalism" and the "father of a watered-down gospel." What is your view of Finney: his strengths and weaknesses, and his overall influence?

Finney was known for preaching holiness. He truly believed that Christians should be involved in improving the world. He strongly believed that Christians has a responsibility to improve the world around him. I strongly believe that many Evangelicals today could use a lesson from Finney. I am not a Calvinist, and so I agree with Finney that Christ died for all; however, I do not like that Finney believed in the perseverance of the saints, which I guess would in some ways be construed in my mind as a watered down gospel. Hey, respond to the altar call, and you’re going to heaven, and Finney was famous for his altar calls. However, I do know that Finney .believed holiness was absolutely essential, and so I do not think that is necessarily the case. Still while I love Christ’s love being emphasized, I also think obedience is important as well. While altar calls are great, they can be dangerous when they are paired with an idea like perseverance of the saints.

[Rebecca]

Finney can certainly be described as "the Father of American Evangelicalism." His method of revival movement and his passion to see his listeners have a personal experience with Jesus are distinctively evangelical. His innovation of the anxious bench and the seeking of a response to the message are clear forerunners to our current concepts and practices of the altar call. He was also able to utilize a message and method that cut through denominational barriers in order to forge a distinct theological position.

However, I think it is a bit overstated to accuse Finney of being "the Father of a watered-down Gospel." We have to remember that Finney is a trained lawyer and not a trained theologian. I think it is more accurate to say he is "the Father of a more flexable Gospel" in that he is able to build a bridge between Calvinist and Arminian thinkers. Finney is certainly not the most thorough theologian, but it does not seem that he ever sets out to be. His passion is as a revivalist, and he finds himself placed in the role of being a spokesman for his position.

Now we have all kinds of seeker sensitive churches. It seems like the goal of these churches is to provide entertainment and do absolutely nothing to offend anyone. I also agree with the idea that so many Christians are now afraid of theology and doctrine. They blame theology and doctrine for the reasons why Christianity is so divided today. However, the Bible encourages Christians to have sound doctrine. Theology in many ways is the study of Scripture, and it’s also studying different people’s reflections on God and who He is. So many Christians area afraid of ideas and using their brains, but they fail to recognize that God gave us brains for a reason!

However, I think there are many people who do not particularly care for the watered down gospel. I think people are hungry for meat, rather than just milk. I agree I think the church should be focused on discipleship rather than just making converts. Being a Christian is a lot more than responding to an altar call, it’s a life time of following Christ. I know that before the early Church would receive people into the Church, they actually required potential converts to attend a class and a period of instruction, before they would baptize people. I think perhaps it would be a good idea for this type of thing to be reinstituted.

[flodoman]

Charles Finney’s strengths were his clear, logical presentation, such that hundreds of thousands of persons were converted. His passion was holiness, and he made a big deal about entire consecration (something preachers today would do well to do). Finney was a man of intense and prolonged prayer. He spent hours in prayer before and after revival meetings. I think his prayer life combined with the liberal anointing of the Holy Spirit’s power that rested on him probably mattered more in his success as an evangelist than his techniques. Finney had a strong work ethic, laboring many hours a week during revivals. Finally he had a tremendous evangelistic zeal that is not often seen. His place in American evangelicalism is unquestionably notable. Beyond that, he not only spoke out against the ills of society in his time, but he took an active stand against them and called the church to follow suit. He allowed women to lead prayer during his services. He refused to serve communion to slaveholders in his congregation and was a early leader in the movement to abolish slavery. He allowed both women and blacks into Oberlin etc.

I think his weaknesses were the result of pride, and I wonder if this was not the case that God may have used him in an even more spectacular way. He seemed to have a lone-ranger mentality (just me and the Bible) and as a result tended to be unteachable and uncorrectable. He despised the formal study of divinity and tended to rely on his own theologically untutored reason. This put him at odds from historic confessional Christianity in many significant doctrinal issues. I am guessing that the charge that he preached a “watered down Gospel” refers to his Pelagian thoughts and his rejection of
substitutionary atonement, in which he minimized the work of Christ to save sinners and placed the responsibility for salvation squarely on the shoulders of humans. He held that humans have the ability to repent on our own without the Lord drawing us in and that humans can create new hearts for ourselves, without the action of the Holy Spirit. In fact, he even though that we can achieve rigid perfectionism in this life. Since he did not believe in original sin, he thought that people could turn to God in repentance without supernatural intervention – thus, any measure that could elicit a decision for Christ was legitimate – praying publicly for unconverted by name, demanding instant decisions (his “new measures”). Perhaps he was he was so much on the go, holding revivals, that he did not have time for deep, reflective theology. Yet, despite his personal shortcomings and his defective theology, God used him remarkably.

Overall, I think that his influence was tremendous. Not only was he a major leader of the Second Great Awakening in America, his influence affected Europe as well (he made 2 trips there). He has paved the way for mass evangelists who came later on, such as D.L. Moody, Billy Sunday, and in my lifetime, Billy Graham. I would say that he had a profound impact on the overall history of the US, and his work has provided an impetus for revivals around the world.

[flodoman]

Charles Finney has been heralded as both the "father of American evangelicalism" and the "father of a watered-down gospel." What is your view of Finney: his strengths and weaknessess, and his overall influence?

There is no doubt that Charles Finney has had tremendous influence on evangelicalism. On the positive side, his preaching resulted in many revivals and conversions. His evangelistic methods have shaped modern evangelism as well. Also, he was instrumental in calling to church to action in regards to social issues such as slavery. On the negative side, some of his theology is suspect. This is especially true in regards to his view of human nature and the atonement.

I think there are valuable lessons we can learn from Finney’s life and ministry - God’s supernatural power is not an endorsement of everything a person believes or does (God anointed Samson even though he slept with Philistine prostitutes), and a person’s failings do not negate God’s ability to work through him – we must not reject the power of God on a person just because his life or doctrine is imperfect (Balaam was an idolater, but God still spoke prophetically though him)

[DonnieJack]

Charles Finney has been heralded as both the "father of American evangelicalism" and the "father of a watered-down gospel." What is your view of Finney: his strengths and weaknesses, and his overall influence?

Charles Finney has earned the title as the "father of American evangelicalism" for a reason. Finney played a huge role in spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ during the 19th century. His preaching resulted in many revivals and conversions. His passion for souls was his utmost strength. I dont think it is fair to say that he was the "father of a watered-down gospel." Finney believed in holiness and was a holiness preacher. He also believed in the grace of God. His theology might of not been one of a scholar, rather he was a simple preacher who cared for the salvation of one's soul.

[DonnieJack]

Finney can certainly be described as "the Father of American Evangelicalism." His method of revival movement and his passion to see his listeners have a personal experience with Jesus are distinctively evangelical. His innovation of the anxious bench and the seeking of a response to the message are clear forerunners to our current concepts and practices of the altar call. He was also able to utilize a message and method that cut through denominational barriers in order to forge a distinct theological position.

However, I think it is a bit overstated to accuse Finney of being "the Father of a watered-down Gospel." We have to remember that Finney is a trained lawyer and not a trained theologian. I think it is more accurate to say he is "the Father of a more flexable Gospel" in that he is able to build a bridge between Calvinist and Arminian thinkers. Finney is certainly not the most thorough theologian, but it does not seem that he ever sets out to be. His passion is as a revivalist, and he finds himself placed in the role of being a spokesman for his position.

Now we have all kinds of seeker sensitive churches. It seems like the goal of these churches is to provide entertainment and do absolutely nothing to offend anyone. I also agree with the idea that so many Christians are now afraid of theology and doctrine. They blame theology and doctrine for the reasons why Christianity is so divided today. However, the Bible encourages Christians to have sound doctrine. Theology in many ways is the study of Scripture, and it’s also studying different people’s reflections on God and who He is. So many Christians area afraid of ideas and using their brains, but they fail to recognize that God gave us brains for a reason!

However, I think there are many people who do not particularly care for the watered down gospel. I think people are hungry for meat, rather than just milk. I agree I think the church should be focused on discipleship rather than just making converts. Being a Christian is a lot more than responding to an altar call, it’s a life time of following Christ. I know that before the early Church would receive people into the Church, they actually required potential converts to attend a class and a period of instruction, before they would baptize people. I think perhaps it would be a good idea for this type of thing to be reinstituted.

I think is to extreme to say that seeker-sensitive churches are just provideing entertainment. It is my understanding that being seeker-sensitive is for the sole purpose of winning converts. Now I understand that some churches might be doing this for people to attend their church or whatever, but I also know that some churches have the idea that we should change the method in reaching people and not the message. Likewise, we need to combine the seeker-sensitive church with strong Biblical content for the purpose or winning souls and making disciples.

[driskelljason]

Charles Finney has been heralded as both the "father of American evangelicalism" and the "father of a watered-down gospel." What is your view of Finney: his strengths and weaknesses, and his overall influence?
Finney can be described as both the "father of American evangelicalism" and the "father of a watered-down gospel". Finney was one of the greatest evangulist of his time and many revivals reaching many people were from him. His preaching was watered down. His understanding and teachings of Jesus' attonement for sin and the sovereignty of God were not totally identified with that of scripture. he also taught of a weaker power of the Holy Spirit. The messages he taught were direct and related to his time period (able to be used by the people).

[driskelljason]

Charles Finney has been heralded as both the "father of American evangelicalism" and the "father of a watered-down gospel." What is your view of Finney: his strengths and weaknessess, and his overall influence?

I believe Finney could be described as both. As an American evangelist, Finney did much to spread the gospel in the early 19th Century and had a major influence on many of the evangelists and preachers that followed in his footsteps. Many people came to Christ from his teaching and preaching during the revival that was sweeping the country during his time . However, from what I have read of him and his teachings, he did preach a "watered-down" gospel. A gospel that emphasized that one could make a decision to become a Christian, in other words, to Finney, regeneration followed the human decision.

While I do agree that in some aspects Finney preached a watered-down gospel, I do not think that calling the unsaved to make a decision to become a Christian, in and of itself, constitutes theological compromise. In Scripture one can find many examples of God pleading with people to repent, or turn to God. Could one not say that God was essentially calling them to make a decision to turn to him? This is not to say anything about whether or not they are able to do it by their own strength. To be sure, other Scriptures do show the need for God?s grace in conversion, and calling people to repentance does not negate that.

I also agree that Finney was a major figure in the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in his era. He caused many great strides in what he taught and preached to others. He motivated and assisted in their development which furthered the spread of the gospel. But... he did preach a watered down version of the Gospel, in which regeneration followed the human's decision. although he gets a negitive reaction from some , he still helped shape evangulism for the world. But one must also weigh the teaching of the watering down against the great influence he had.

[mleew_99]

I wouldn’t conclusively say that Charles Finney is the “Father of American Evangelicalism.” He definitely brought something ‘new and different’ to the table of what was going on during his time. For instance, his reputation for fostering an environment that allowed (and expected) a response to the message that he was preaching, which resembles what we know and do today as evangelical believers. However, I would say that there were definitely other instances of activity that came before that of Finney and continued after in order to move Christianity into an ‘evangelical’ state. As far as the ‘watered down’ gospel, well people have been being accused of doing this since the beginning of Christianity and still continue even today so why point all fingers at Finney. Maybe, just maybe, Finney was teaching through his understanding (and most others around him) at the time. After all, didn’t the world use to be flat???

[mleew_99]

Finney can certainly be described as "the Father of American Evangelicalism." His method of revival movement and his passion to see his listeners have a personal experience with Jesus are distinctively evangelical. His innovation of the anxious bench and the seeking of a response to the message are clear forerunners to our current concepts and practices of the altar call. He was also able to utilize a message and method that cut through denominational barriers in order to forge a distinct theological position.

However, I think it is a bit overstated to accuse Finney of being "the Father of a watered-down Gospel." We have to remember that Finney is a trained lawyer and not a trained theologian. I think it is more accurate to say he is "the Father of a more flexable Gospel" in that he is able to build a bridge between Calvinist and Arminian thinkers. Finney is certainly not the most thorough theologian, but it does not seem that he ever sets out to be. His passion is as a revivalist, and he finds himself placed in the role of being a spokesman for his position.

I would agree wholeheartedly with the description of Finney and his method. I would give praise to the innovations that Finney brought, as well as his emphasis on personal encounter. However, I would still have to point out that Finney, along with all he brings to the table, was simply one step along the path to evangelicalism today.

Some borrow heavily from Finney's ideas and innovations, but maybe it is because we borrow heavily from somewhat of a "watered-down" (for lack of a better term) source that we still have somewhat of a "watered-down" gospel today. There are many today who are trying to do things like Finney and others were doing, and these are also people who do not have theological training.

I am not saying that you have to be a theologian to share the gespel; what I am saying, however, is that our churches today are going the way of the non-denominational (to try to bridge the gap), and in doing so we are losing ground when it comes to making true disciples of Jesus Christ instead of just gaining converts. There seems to be a move today to have churches that are palatable... that is just another way of saying "watered-down." You do not have to be a theologian, but you should not be afraid of theology -- Jesus is the heart of the gospel, but he is also the heart of theology.

I would have to agree with several people on this subject of whether or not Finney preached a ‘watered down’ gospel. Watered down or not, it seemed to be effective to some extent. I do no think that allowing those present to make decisions for themselves is really the issue at hand here. As it was said in another response, Jesus did it.

I would disagree that the trend of our churches today going the direction of the ‘non-denominational’ effort is causing us to lose ground in making disciples for Jesus Christ in exchange for gaining converts. In fact, I think it does just what you said … bridge the gap. What is wrong with that, and besides that, where did this gap come from in the first place? Possibly from ‘religious people’.

I may be wrong, but I thought one of the things that Christ came to do was to bridge some gaps, and I am glad that He did.

[Dan Biegler]

Charles Finney has been heralded as both the "father of American evangelicalism" and the "father of a watered-down gospel." What is your view of Finney: his strengths and weaknesses, and his overall influence?
Often it seems that the term, "watered-down gospel" is spoken from a Calvinist/Fundamentalist perspective. We must remember that while there are many things right about these schools of theology, they are human interpretive systems and subject to scruitiny. As I look at Finney's gospel mesage, I see the Lordship of Christ, the Authority of the word, the sin of man and his need for repentance and faith in Christ. I see nothing watered down about that gospel message. I mainly see a diference in Finney's theology of human choice as apposed to Calvin's doctrine of the elect. As well I see Finney as very optimistic in his view of humans attaining Christlike perfection in this life. If Finney's guilt is that he did not agree with Clavin on issues of human choice, well at least he did not hinder any human from making the right choice. If he was guilty of overoptimism in human perfection, at least he did not underestimate our potential and enable mediocrity. If Finney had to depart with Calvin on any issues, at least he set the bar high for human hopes and oblilgations, and not as low as Calvin seemed to.

[Dan Biegler]

Now we have all kinds of seeker sensitive churches. It seems like the goal of these churches is to provide entertainment and do absolutely nothing to offend anyone. I also agree with the idea that so many Christians are now afraid of theology and doctrine. They blame theology and doctrine for the reasons why Christianity is so divided today. However, the Bible encourages Christians to have sound doctrine. Theology in many ways is the study of Scripture, and it’s also studying different people’s reflections on God and who He is. So many Christians area afraid of ideas and using their brains, but they fail to recognize that God gave us brains for a reason!

However, I think there are many people who do not particularly care for the watered down gospel. I think people are hungry for meat, rather than just milk. I agree I think the church should be focused on discipleship rather than just making converts. Being a Christian is a lot more than responding to an altar call, it’s a life time of following Christ. I know that before the early Church would receive people into the Church, they actually required potential converts to attend a class and a period of instruction, before they would baptize people. I think perhaps it would be a good idea for this type of thing to be reinstituted.
Are we asserting that Finney is responsible for the Seeker Sensitive Church movement? Does disagreeing with Calivin's doctrine of the elect make one a theological lightweight?
First, Finney did preach sin and brought many to writhe in conviction, pushing them to repentance. One of the main gripes of hardline fundamentalists is that sin is not preached, yet Finney preached it. He also preached repentance, another hardline griping point.
Next, where is it evident that Finney encouraged people to shut off their brains and disregard theology?
Finally, the scriptures say that meat is for the mature (the saved) while milk is for babes (just saved). Is it safe then to conclude that Finney believed that the gospel message should be easy for the unsaved and unsophisticatd to understand?
I believe that while Calvinism and Fundamentalism provide much that is true and useful, they have led to an overcomplication of the simplicty of the gospel, holding many in dersison who seek the simplicity that Christ had handed down...Christ, not Calvin. Christ was the giver of theology, Calvin was an interpreter.
As I mentioned in my first post, I believe that Calvin's doctrine of the elect sets low and gloomy hopes for humanity and really does encourage some to not only shut off their brains, but toss all hope out the door. Finney preached to his audience a gospel that was simple to understand and set high hopes for all who would hear.
Also Finney was an evangelist, a minsiter to the unsaved. While I agree that the meat of the word must be served for maturity, Finney was not tasked with discipling the saved, he was reaching the lost. We can not hold him responsible for not serving meat to believers when his job was to preach to the unsaved.
We must not assume that simplicty is the abandoning of truth.
We must also not hold evangelsists responsible for doing the same job as discilpers since the Bible asserts them to be separate offices with separate tasks.

[Schmiedc]

Charles Finney is a great candidate for the title "Father of American Evangelicalism." His revival procedures and theology were unique. He emphasized revival, the Bible as authoritative, the Holy Spirit, and New School Calvinism. He stressed benevolence, getting sinners converted, anti-slavery, and pointed to a moral government. He applied faith to living, emphasized evangelism, millennial perspectives, and Postmillennialism. His mission in life was to get people ready for Christ's return to earth.

We should not let some of his bizarre practices such as the use of the "anxious seat" or being "struck in the Spirt" undermine his impact. He clearly was one of the real drivers in the Second Great Awakening. The burned-over District in New York State burned with the fires of revival many of which were set by Finney. Through his millennial optimism he was a key in the rebirth of revivalism in America.

[Schmiedc]

I believe Finney could be described as both. As an American evangelist, Finney did much to spread the gospel in the early 19th Century and had a major influence on many of the evangelists and preachers that followed in his footsteps. Many people came to Christ from his teaching and preaching during the revival that was sweeping the country during his time . However, from what I have read of him and his teachings, he did preach a "watered-down" gospel. A gospel that emphasized that one could make a decision to become a Christian, in other words, to Finney, regeneration followed the human decision.

I agree that Finney could be described as an American evangelist. His revival procedures and theology were unique. He emphasized revival, the Bible as authoritative, the Holy Spirit, and New School Calvinism. He stressed benevolence, getting sinners converted, anti-slavery, and pointed to a moral government. He applied faith to living, emphasized evangelism, millennial perspectives, and Postmillennialism. His mission in life was to get people ready for Christ's return.

I don't believe he preached a watered-down Gospel at all. It is true that his invitational techiques were a bit bizarre. But frequently people need a fire lit under them to make a decision. Finney was certainly prepared to do that. There are a lot of people in Heaven today that would not be there if Finney hadn't crossed their path!

[Hotchkisst]

From what I have read and understand of Finney's "watering down" of the scripture is much like many pastors and preachers today. Rather than not being culturally relavent, people will say that the Gospel they are preaching is watered down. As preacher Finney had rare gifts. Wherever he went extensive revivals prevailed. His manner was dramatic, direct, and personal. He used simple language and illustrations. His presentation was clear and strictly logical. This to me does not sound half bad. If a pastor can be culturally relavent without compromising the truth and bringing souls into the Kingdom then we should stand behind him regardless of mode of delivery. Now some of Finney's theology could be suspect. He had an understanding of regeneration that was more attributed to a persons will than it was to the power of the Holy Spirit. I cannot agree with that completely, but as an American evangelist...we can see the fruit.

[Becomer]

Charles Finney has been heralded as both the "father of American evangelicalism" and the "father of a watered-down gospel." What is your view of Finney: his strengths and weaknesses, and his overall influence?

I must say that I am a big fan of Charles Finney. If tens of thousands of people make a commitment to Christ through you, I think you might someday be called the father of something! However I do not agree that Finney was a "father of a watered-down gospel." It seems to me that those who give their lives to bring large numbers of people to the Lord are accused with the "watered-down" label. Finney was an evangelist who challenged unbelievers to come to faith, but he also challenged each convert to be a part of the local church where ongoing discipleship could take place.

Finney gave up his life and spoke boldly about issues. Not just slavery or women praying in mixed services, he actually called out individuals and issues in his services! His boldness for holy living and willingness to challenge believers and unbelievers alike took a lot of guts! (I realize "guts" is not an academic word, but the term says it best)

He was also innovative. His extemperaneous preaching proves to me that he was a thoughtful man who sought the Lord in prayer and knew his subject so well that he was not dependent on notes for his preaching. His use of altar calls gave people a metaphorical line to "step over" and come to faith. We are accustomed to it today, but Finney boldly pioneered the practice for the sake of those who came to believe.

As for weaknesses the main issue is his belief that salvation depends on a person's will to repent. However from what I've read, Finney believed that we are saved by grace and thus the door to salvation was opened through Jesus and now depends on each individual's will to repent. I wouldn't even call that a weakness.

I wish believers today had half of the boldness for the Lord that Finney had.

[Becomer]

I haven't heard either of these "heralds", but I would have to say that it would be hard to put a finger on one individual as the father of evangelicalism. Finney had a lot to offer, particularly in the realm of "method." But his method seemed to push for "results", and not necessarliy "disciples." I'm not so sure that is the best thing. As to a "watered-down gospel" I would have to say that Finney used the gospel that he knew, which may be a slightly different gospel than what we might call the gospel today -- remember, though, that Finney's background and training was not in biblical theology, but in Law... a deeper biblical training might have helped his gospel line up with our critiques (but that's just my critique).

I agree with adamduchin's view that Finney had a lot to offer in the realm of "method." However I think the "results" that Finney pushed for were disciples. I don't think Finney set out to count noses and nickels, but to make converts who would immediately begin to grow as disciples. Finney's life was radically changed at the age of 29 It seems to me that he wanted others to have that same radical experience which transforms the rest of your life. To me, that's more than methods or conversions, that's discipleship. I think Finney's gospel is close to if not the same as ours today. Sin separates each of us from God, Jesus is the answer. When we step across the line of faith, the Lord will help us clean up our lives as we go.

[SeaPeak]

"Charles Finney has been heralded as both the "father of American evangelicalism" and the "father of a watered-down gospel." What is your view of Finney: his strengths and weaknesses, and his overall influence?"

Finney was an evangelist largely responsible for the Second Great Awakening in America. He was an extraordinary extemporaneous speaker. His background was Calvinism but he felt that people had to choose to repent their sins and accept the free gift of salvation from God through the substitutionary atonement for their sins. However, he did not believe nor preach that one’s salvation is an act of their free will but one is justified by faith alone. Hence he was a link between the extreme Calvinist view that Grace was irresistible and hence evangelism is not necessary and the extreme Arminian view that man chooses to be saved outside the sovereignty of God. In this day this view is best explained by Norman L. Geisler. In his preaching it may appear to some that Finney preached a “watered down” gospel but one must remember he was an itinerant evangelist intent first on making non-believers to recognize their sinfulness, the penalty of sin, that God loves them, and Jesus paid the price for their sins and they need only repent and accept Jesus as their Lord and savior. This is Peter’s Pentecost sermon. Evangelism doesn’t need an elaborate presentation of the gospel but that does not mean the preacher holds to a watered down gospel. Teaching and maturing is the responsibility of the fix institutions.

[eric.j.davenport]

Charles Finney has been heralded as both the "father of American evangelicalism" and the "father of a watered-down gospel." What is your view of Finney: his strengths and weaknesses, and his overall influence?

Charles Finney’s Finney was a bridge figure seeking to guard his listeners from hyper Calvinism on the one hand and Arminianism on the other. His main goal in life was in the conversion of sinners. He believed in the ability of a person to repent of their sins and accept Christ as their Savior making a new heart. This is in contrast to what the hyper Calvinist were preaching during the day that God is Sovereign and chooses who is predestined to be saved. Calvinist preached that grace is irresistible to those that are predestined and there is nothing that person could do because God Saves them. So it was pointless for Christians to try to convert sinners. However, Finney preached that it is by human choice to accept Christ by faith and it was the responsibility before the 2nd coming of Christ and the Millennial reign for Christians to evangelize. In addition, Charles Finney preached holiness and that entire sanctification or Christian perfection was possible simply by exercising free will and cultivating “right intentions.” This could be achieved in one’s own lifetime.

I believe that Finney is rightly called the “father of American evangelicalism.” I do not believe the gospel he preached to be watered down. I believe that he preached in repentance of sins and turning to Christ for forgiveness of sins. I don’t see how that is a watered down gospel. I also believe that his methodology of using the anxious seat was a precursor of the alter call. I don’t see how a public declaration of faith or making a commitment before men that one is going to accept Christ goes against what the Bible teaches. His other influences include allowing women to pray in public worship service and allowing both blacks and women into Oberlin College.

[eric.j.davenport]

I agree that Finney could be described as an American evangelist. His revival procedures and theology were unique. He emphasized revival, the Bible as authoritative, the Holy Spirit, and New School Calvinism. He stressed benevolence, getting sinners converted, anti-slavery, and pointed to a moral government. He applied faith to living, emphasized evangelism, millennial perspectives, and Postmillennialism. His mission in life was to get people ready for Christ's return.

I don't believe he preached a watered-down Gospel at all. It is true that his invitational techiques were a bit bizarre. But frequently people need a fire lit under them to make a decision. Finney was certainly prepared to do that. There are a lot of people in Heaven today that would not be there if Finney hadn't crossed their path!
His techniques may have been bazaar for that day and time; however, the use of the anxious seat, I feel was a precursor to altar call of today. Not only did it take away distractions from others around them that might have hindered the individual’s from making a commitment for Christ, it helped to focus the Christians in the gatherings prayer toward those individual’s on the anxious seat.

Finney’s revivals were totally sold out and radical for Christ. Finney’s “Lectures on Revival” are a good example to look to of what is needed today. We need ministers of music whose hearts are right, who have spent time in prayer; we need our messages to reflect the time that we have spent in prayer and the word of God.

As ministers of the Gospel message today we have to be in tune with the Holy Spirit’s direction. He may be speaking to someone in our audience or congregation that is ready to make a commitment for Christ. We may however, have to change our normal mode or method of communicating the Gospel.

[revscottosattin]

Charles Finney has been heralded as both the "father of American evangelicalism" and the "father of a watered-down gospel." What is your view of Finney: his strengths and weaknesses, and his overall influence?

Finney was a revolutionary for his time period. His greatest strengths are in the power of his preaching with a special attention to his involvement in the Second Great Awakening. He preached with the knowledge that he wanted to see lives changed for eternity. His weaknesses lie in his faulty thinking that he could rid society of social evil. Without Finney there is no way that the Western Frontier is reached in that time period.

[revscottosattin]

I must say that I am a big fan of Charles Finney. If tens of thousands of people make a commitment to Christ through you, I think you might someday be called the father of something! However I do not agree that Finney was a "father of a watered-down gospel." It seems to me that those who give their lives to bring large numbers of people to the Lord are accused with the "watered-down" label. Finney was an evangelist who challenged unbelievers to come to faith, but he also challenged each convert to be a part of the local church where ongoing discipleship could take place.

Finney gave up his life and spoke boldly about issues. Not just slavery or women praying in mixed services, he actually called out individuals and issues in his services! His boldness for holy living and willingness to challenge believers and unbelievers alike took a lot of guts! (I realize "guts" is not an academic word, but the term says it best)

He was also innovative. His extemperaneous preaching proves to me that he was a thoughtful man who sought the Lord in prayer and knew his subject so well that he was not dependent on notes for his preaching. His use of altar calls gave people a metaphorical line to "step over" and come to faith. We are accustomed to it today, but Finney boldly pioneered the practice for the sake of those who came to believe.

As for weaknesses the main issue is his belief that salvation depends on a person's will to repent. However from what I've read, Finney believed that we are saved by grace and thus the door to salvation was opened through Jesus and now depends on each individual's will to repent. I wouldn't even call that a weakness.

I wish believers today had half of the boldness for the Lord that Finney had.

I agree with what you have said about Finney. There was no watering down of the gospel at all. Those innovations he had still carry over into modern times which speaks volumes to the impact he had at the time and the impact he still has today on the church. The only possible issue I might take with you is that salvation is not based upon a person's will to repent. Salvation is a gift from God and required the drawing of the Holy Spirit to occur.