Michael Horton on Charles Finney

Michael Horton is a distinguished professor at Westminster Seminary. He wrote a short article I read recently on Charles Finney, American evangelist of the 19th century. I will come back to Finney's effects on American Christianity later, but suffice to say, he has deeply influenced all of Protestantism in America since before and after the Civil War, through his writings and teachings about such topics as Christian conversion and revival.

Horton quotes the following from Charles Grandison Finney (Systematic Theology, pg. 46):

"But for sinners to be forensically pronounced just, is impossible and absurd... As we shall see, there are many conditions, while there is but one ground, of the justification of sinners ... As has already been said, there can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law. This is of course denied by those who hold that gospel justification, or the justification of penitent sinners, is of the nature of a forensic or judicial justification. They hold to the legal maxim that what a man does by another he does by himself, and therefore the law regards Christ’s obedience as ours, on the ground that he obeyed for us."

Let me put this in layman's terms:

The idea that people who break God's law can be legally declared "not-guilty" (by God), is impossible and foolish...I will show you that there are many conditions for a person to be declared righteous by God, but all these are based upon one root condition...As I have already said, law-breakers cannot be said to be "not-guilty" (as by a jury, judge, or God)...there is no such law-breaker freeing verdict given by anyone, rather, the one condition for being declared "not-guilty" is whole-hearted, completely fulfilled, and constant (for all of life) obedience to the moral law of God. This idea, of course, is denied by those who say that Gospel declaration of repenting law-breakers means that God calls such repenting law-breakers "not-guilty," (often called judicial justification). They hold to the legal idea that a person may have another person do something to take his or her legal obligation (his obedience or punishment for example), and therefore that Christ's obedience may be said to be ours, because he obeyed God for us.

This paragraph, which I have tried to paraphrase rightly, reveals that Finney could not abide the idea of one person fulfilling another person's moral obligations to God's law--even if it was Jesus Christ! Never mind that the moral law flows from God's character and that God has shown in both OT and NT scripture that He allows one person to take another person's moral obligations!

Romans 3:21-26 does not show God calling a person "not-guilty" on the basis of their moral behavior...no way! This whole section says that a person's "faith" or trust in Christ's death for himself/herself is the way a person is declared "not-guilty." In other words, God gave Christ as a gracious substitute for law-breakers and law-breakers embrace Him as their substitute in order to be declared "not-guilty" of their deeds.

Paul even goes on and says: "Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By one of works? No, the contrary, by a law of faith." (Rom. 3:27 HCSB).

Still with me? Does it sound like Finney was in line with the Bible? That's right! He taught error instead of the truth concerning the most important doctrines...how guilty law-breakers are to be relieved of the guilt of their wrongdoings. This is a very serious error...in fact, it is the most serious error...it is the error of the Pharisees of Jesus day: Trying to get right with God by good behavior!

As I said before, Finney is revered among many evangelicals, Horton says:..."Jerry Falwell calls him "one of my heroes and a hero to many evangelicals, including Billy Graham." I can add to this testimony, as I was listening to Dr. James Dobson one night on the radio and he commended Finney on his radio program by reporting a positive testimony of someone converted under Finney's ministry. If you ever read "Hell's Best Kept Secret" or "The Way of the Master" materials (by Ray Comfort), you will find he deeply respects Finney too.

Despite what I have shared with you here about Finney's understanding of salvation, many evangelicals blindly see him as a great man...and in the human sense, he probably provoked many to better behavior. Yet, tragically, he did not give people what they needed, the Word of God on salvation that would save their souls...he left them hoping to reach heaven by works--utter folly.

Finney is worth investigating also because of his lasting impact on the church. Ever heard of a church altar call? That's Finney's baby. Ever wonder when the sinner's prayer began to be highly popularized in America? Finney again. Ever wonder where modern revivals that focus on getting people to "get right with God" (in behavior) and which focus on people's emotions to get them to respond to God come from? Finney a third time. He didn't invent these things by himself, except the alter call, but all are children of his view of sinners getting right with God by behavior.

I would say finally, that all these things were well intentioned...but woefully off base in their origin. The Gospel itself is a command to repent and have faith in Christ alone for salvation; Finney put the focus on the quality of the individual's repentance, in fact, all the load for salvation is based on the individual's behavior. Therefore, Finney's system leads to both pride (for the morally strong) and despair (for the morally weaker sort), and both pride and despair have wreaked havoc on the preaching of the Gospel in America.

Many called Christians and churches have based salvation on the strength of the moral impulse. In other words, particular conformity to a Christian group's scruples becomes a substitute in salvation for the brokeness, humility, and love toward God that ought to characterize true salvation. It's not that Christ didn't give commands for us to carry out, but many in the American church (because of Finney) have added to them and required near behavioral perfection in the Christian life or adaption to a particular group's commands as the basis of whether a person is Christian or not. No wonder that we have pride in the American church. No wonder that we don't reach out with the true Gospel as we ought. Many of us are confused. Charles Finney has lent us part of our Christian legacy in America, and that legacy is tainted with dangerous error.

Here is the link to Horton's article: http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar81.htm