CHARLES FINNEY
In
approaching Charles Finney we need to briefly look at the transition years
between him and the earlier writings of Wesley and Fletcher. Timothy Smith implies that Methodism adopted
the Pentecostal terminology direct from Finney but this is disputable on the
evidence of the very text that he appeals to George Peck’s, Christian
Perfection[i].19 George Peck can be quite critical of Finney
and believes the view that he sets out is the orthodox Wesleyan one. Before
proceeding it is important to let Smith speak for himself; he says,
The transfer
of Finney’s Pentecostal language into American Methodism was direct and
immediate. George.O.Peck, editor of the
influential Methodist weekly, the New York Christian Advocate, paid close
attention to Finney’s lectures as they appeared in The Oberlin Evangelist in 1839 and 1840. In the fall of the latter year, he became the
first Methodist I know since John Fletcher to have equated the experience of
entire sanctification with the baptism of the Holy Spirit.[ii]
In a
footnote Smith describes Peck’s Christian Perfection as a response to Finney
when he says “this volume consists of his lectures in New York City in response
to developments at Oberlin.”[iii] Daniel Steele offers a very different
explanation for the writing of Peck’s volume, he says,
In addition
to these are the testimonies of some who held the so-called Zinderzorf theory
of entire sanctification in the new
birth. A notable instance is that of Dr. Francis Hodgson, who was tried
about sixty years ago by his conference for this heresy....... The New York
conference which tried him, at the same time requested Dr. George Peck to write
a refutation of this error. Thus originated Peck’s Christian Perfection, which
was for a long time in the course of conference studies[iv].
Peck himself
says,
The writer
professes no new light-broaches no new theory; his views, as far as he
understands the subject, are strictly Wesleyan. These views he endeavoured to
free from false glosses, to vindicate against objections, and to enforce by
reasons which address themselves to the highest principles and susceptibilities
of our nature[v].
This
statement shows clearly that Peck did not see himself as departing from the
orthodox teaching of the Methodism of his day.
It seems that what was being taught in the church was a minor
development of John Wesley’s and John Fletcher’s teaching, indeed Peck, appeals
to Wesley and Fletcher in the development of his thinking. The most credible view seems to be that
entire sanctification was preached and taught within the churches but the
orthodox view had to be defended in print when it was criticised from both
within Methodism and from without.
Indeed the material gathered by Allan Coppedge in his article “Entire
Sanctification in Early American Methodism 1812-1835”, points in the same direction[vi]. It seems evident that although there had
been a decline in Holiness preaching in the early years of the nineteenth
century as Peters demonstrates[vii] there
had not been an entire abandonment of classic Wesleyan teaching. Indeed, it is quite probable that others
were advancing in their formulation of this doctrine. Peck is more indebted to Fletcher in his
theology than he is to Finney. His
quotations from, The Last Check, show this dependence clearly. Peck should therefore be seen as one who
stands consciously and consistently in the Wesleyan tradition. In the light of the above we need to ask, how
much was Charles Finney influenced by Wesleyan thinking? In 1837 Finney gave some lectures on
Christian perfection in which he shows an awareness of perfectionist
literature, he says,
I will say
despite the errors into which some of these so called perfectionists have
fallen, the Bible does teach Christian perfection, and the Bible doctrine on
this subject is what nobody needs to fear, but what everybody needs to
know. I disclaim, entirely, the charge
of maintaining the peculiarities, whatever they be, of modern perfectionists. I have read their publications and have much
knowledge of them as individuals, and I cannot assent to many of their
views. But the doctrine of Christian
perfection is a duty is one which I have always maintained, I have become more
convinced of it in these last few months, and that it is attainable in this
life[viii].
A few pages
later Charles Finney explicitly refers to John Wesley and his views of
Christian perfection, he said,
I have
recently read Mr. Wesley’s Plain Account
of Christian Perfection, a book I never saw until lately. I find some expressions in it to which I
should object, but I believe it is the expression rather than the sentiments.
And I think, with this qualification, it is an admirable book, and I wish every
member of this church to read it[ix].
The above
quotations were written two years before Finney started to articulate his view
of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
This seems to demonstrate clearly the influence of Wesleyan thinking
upon Finney. It raises the question,
did some of the books Finney read identify the baptism of the Holy Spirit with
entire sanctification?
Charles Finney’s thinking developed over the
years, his earliest teaching about the baptism of the Holy Spirit was given in
1839-40 and is contained in the collection of essays and letters compiled by
Timothy Smith under the title The Promise of The Spirit[x].
His mature thinking is contained in
his, Power from on High[xi]. Some editions of Power from on High were
under the same cover as Asa Mahan’s Baptism with the Holy Ghost[xii]. Finney and Mahan were good friends and both
made significant contributions to the development of the doctrine of the
baptism of the Holy Spirit. Asa
Mahan’s teaching will therefore be examined in the next chapter.
The
Development of Charles Finney’s teaching: Although Charles Finney did not start
teaching about the baptism with the Holy Spirit until 1839-1840, one can see in
some of his early writings, the seed from which his thinking developed. This can be seen in some of his comments in
his, Lectures on Revival[xiii]
. These lectures were delivered in 1834
and show Finney’s views in an embryonic form.
Chapter 7, shows the need for Christians to be filled with the Holy
Spirit and yet Finney has not yet embraced the doctrine of entire
sanctification, as can be seen in his reference to the struggle caused by “your
remaining corruption's”[xiv]
32. But Finney is already stressing the
need to be filled with the Spirit and correlating this with power for
evangelism. Finney says,
You will
know how to use tools and strategies to convert unbelievers. The Holy Spirit in you will lead you to use means
wisely. You will adapt them well and
avoid hurting people. No one void of
God’s Spirit is fit to direct the tactics of revival. Their hands are all thumbs--unable to take
hold--and they act as if they missed out on common sense. But the person led by the Spirit will have
correct timing and apply the truth to fullest advantage.[xv]
Finney
taught at this stage that being filled with the Spirit gave assurance and
power. Finney strongly exhorts believers
to be filled with the Spirit but at this time he has not yet developed the
teaching on the baptism of the Spirit.
It is important to note at this early stage Finney is already using the
altar terminology which is normally associated with Pheobe Palmer. An example of this is when Finney says,
True
conversion involves consecrating ourselves and all we have to Him, as far as we
understand what this implies. But new
believers are in no way aware of everything involved in consecration’s highest
forms. At first their only thought is
to lay their soul naked upon the altar and give their whole hearts to
God--their possessions or other things close to them. They surrendered
everything they thought of at the time about every appetite, passion,
inclination, desire and love-- everything they call their own--and thoroughly
surrender them all to God. Gaining such
knowledge takes time.
And
yet fully surrendering everything we are, have, desire and love, as quickly as
these objects come to mind, is a condition of growth in God’s favour[xvi].
The emphasis
on consecration here is also similar to later Keswick teaching.
One passage
that proves that Finney had not yet accepted the teaching of the baptism of the
Spirit as a second work of grace, is his comment made in the context of his
discussion of growth in grace, Finney says,
The fact is
that every step of progress in the Christian life is taken by a fresh
appropriation of Christ by faith, a fuller baptism of the Holy Spirit. As our
weaknesses, infirmities, and recurring sins are revealed to us by the
circumstances we face, our only help is found in Christ. We grow only as we step by step appropriate
Him more fully, as we fully “put him on.”
We mature only as fast as we are emptied of self-dependence, as we
renounce any expectation of forming holy habits through our own obedience, as
we partake by faith of deeper and deeper baptisms of the Holy Spirit, and as we
thoroughly put on the Lord Jesus Christ.[xvii]
Finney seems
to have some concept of a baptism of the Holy
Spirit but this seems to be a very profound spiritual experience which
enables the believer to grow in grace.
Although he would stress growth in grace to his dying day, his views on
sanctification and the baptism with the Holy Spirit were to develop over the
years.
In his
sermon on Christian Perfection published in 1837 and quoted above, Finney
clearly embraces entire sanctification but his views seem closer to Wesley than
to Fletcher. Finney was forced by his
early revival ministry to ask himself some searching questions and as a result
try to be more effective in ministry.
The result of this was he gave closer attention to the work of the Holy
Spirit in the believer’s life. Finney
published the results of his reflections in the Oberlin Evangelist in the
period 1839-1840 (and reprinted as The Promise of The Spirit). It is in these articles and letters that he
first teaches the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Timothy Smith thinks that in these articles we have the roots of much of
the holiness teaching of the nineteenth century[xviii],
however, Finney’s comments are somewhat vague.
The biggest problem at this point is that Finney mentions the baptism of
the Spirit and the need for it, but he never defines it! Indeed Finney seems to
presume that his readers will know what he is talking about, but did they? The context of the surrounding sermons might
cause one to think that he is referring to entire sanctification but one cannot
be sure.
Finney’s
letter of 6th May 1840[xix] is
concerned about grounding new Christians in their faith so that they would grow
in the knowledge and grace of God.
Point 5 develops the idea of entire sanctification and is followed by
point 6 where Finney teaches the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is an example of Finney presuming his
readers would understand him although he does not define his terms. The irony of the matter is that Finney does
not do what he call for in this letter when he says,
Converts
should therefore have their attention definitely directed to what this blessing
is--its nature, how it is to be obtained, to what extent and with what degree
of permanency it may be expected. In
short, they need to be baptized into the very death of Christ and by this
baptism to be slain and buried and planted and crucified and raised to a life
of holiness in Christ. Anything short
of this will leave the convert to inevitable backsliding; and to this
attainment I am persuaded he may be led by suitable painstaking on the part of
his religious teachers.[xx]
Finney
clearly links entire sanctification and the baptism of the Holy Spirit but the
question must be asked: Is the baptism
an experience of cleansing or empowering?
The context gives no clear answer to this question. In his next letter dated 3rd June 1840[xxi],
Finney seems to see the baptism in terms of power.
Now the thing
which they need and must have, before they will have power with God or man, is
the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Without
this they will forever remain in the dark in regard to spiritual wants of the
church. And however learned, philosophical, metaphysical, logical or, if you
please, theological their sermons may be, they will always be wide of the mark
and never meet the necessities of the church until they are baptised with the
Holy Ghost. They need to be set apart
to the work by the anointing of God.[xxii]
In this
letter Finney refers to being endued with power from on high, powerful
ministries are ascribed to the baptism of the Spirit. At this stage ambiguities
are apparent in Finney’s teaching.
Purity and power are both taught but the link between them and the
baptism of the Holy Spirit is never explicated. John Gresham notices the difference between
the two letters when he says,
In the
second letter, Finney stressed the importance that ministers be baptized with
the Holy Spirit. In the context he stressed
not the sanctifying effects of this Baptism, but its empowering. This was the one needful thing, more
important than ministerial education, that the minister of the gospel be
“endued with power from on high” that he receive this anointing which would
give him “power with God or man.” The
“main design and bearing” of this baptism of the apostles at Pentecost, as well
as ministers today, “was to fill them with light and love and power in
preaching the Gospel.”[xxiii]
Finney’s use
of Pentecostal language to describe the baptism with the Holy Spirit is seen in
its fullest development in his book Power from on High[xxiv]. The title shows that Finney’s concern at
this point is receiving the power of the Holy Spirit. It is this book which has had a profound effect
on Pentecostal and Charismatic views of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It would appear that R.A Torrey was also
influenced by Finney’s teaching at this point.
An extract from the early pages of, Power from on High, will illustrate
this emphasis on power, Finney said,
The apostles
and brethren, on the day of Pentecost, received it. What did they receive? What
power did they exercise after that event?
They received a powerful baptism of the Holy Ghost, a vast increase in
divine illumination. This baptism
imparted a great diversity of gifts that were used for the accomplishment of
their work. It manifestly included the
following things: The power of a holy life.
The power of a self-sacrificing life.
(The manifestation of these must have had great influence with those to
whom they proclaimed the gospel.) The
power of a cross-bearing life. The power of great meekness, which this baptism
enabled them to exhibit. The power of a
loving enthusiasm in proclaiming the gospel.
The power of teaching. The power
of a loving and living faith. The gift
of tongues. An increase of power to
work miracles. The gift of inspiration, or the revelation of many truths before
unrecognised by them. The power of
moral courage to proclaim the gospel and do the bidding of Christ whatever it
cost them.[xxv]
The above
quote clearly shows that at the end of his life, Finney was emphasising the
power dimension of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Power from on High was first published in 1870.). Even areas that had been emphasised by some
as entire sanctification are now seen in terms of empowerment rather than
cleansing.
One question
that arises from time to time is, how do I receive the baptism of the Holy
Spirit? No clear answer to this
question is given by Finney. A.M. Hills
commented on this when he said,
Signally
useful as that beloved man of God, President Finney, was, I cannot but believe
that he would have led many more into an experience of sanctification, had he
held a different philosophy. He himself
had experienced a marvellous baptism with the Holy Spirit, which made him an
example to the world of “holiness and power.”
But when he tried to lead others into an experience similar to his own,
something stood in his way. President
Mahan says of him: “No one ever
disciplined believers so severely, and with such intense and tireless patience
as Brother Finney. Appalled at the
backsliding which followed his revivals, he put forth the most earnest efforts
to induce among believers permanence in the divine life. He gathered his theological students
together and instructed them in renunciation of sin and consecration to Christ,
and purpose of obedience. They would
renew their renunciations, consecrations, and purpose, with all the intensity
with which their natures were capable.
But they were not told to exercise faith for the blessing; and all their human efforts and consecrations
ended in dismal failure, and left them in groaning bondage, under the law of
sin and death.” If he had only told them to exercise their faith in Jesus, and
receive the Holy Spirit as their Sanctifier, “to will and to do” in them, they
would have received the establishing and keeping blessing.[xxvi]
It is encouraging to see that one so close to
Charles Finney as A.M. Hills, should find the same lack of clarity at certain
points and this also underlines some of the ambiguities that Finney shows
regarding purity and power. With these
ambiguities in mind it is interesting to note that the early Pentecostal
leaders came from holiness backgrounds and wanted to emphasise both purity and
power.
When one
reads what Finney has to say about the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the
ambiguities noted above, it is not
surprising that both Holiness and Pentecostal/Charismatic writers claim him for
themselves. Gary B McGee makes this
helpful comment,
Belief in a
second work of grace was not confined to the Methodist circuit. For example, Charles G. Finney believed that
Spirit baptism provided divine empowerment to achieve Christian perfection at
the same time that his theology refused to sit comfortably in either Wesleyan
or Reformed categories.[xxvii]
McGee
rightly perceives that Finney’s teaching does not fit neatly into any
theological schema, but it is interesting that this Pentecostal scholar
interprets Finney’s teaching in terms of endument of power. Finney’s teaching seems to have influenced
the early Pentecostal leaders either directly or indirectly through Moody and
Torrey.
Finney’s
contribution to the development of the doctrine of the baptism of the Spirit
was motivated by pastoral concerns, this may account for the fact that this
subject is omitted from his Systematic
Theology[xxviii]. Finney’s influence as a revivalist and
teacher undoubtedly gave an impetus to the interest in the subject of the
baptism of the Holy Spirit. If Finney
had not taught the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, one wonders if
the subject would have developed in the way it has. Certainly, the power motif has by the end of
Finney’s life taken a place of greater importance than purity.
Asa Mahan
Asa Mahan is
a crucial person in the development of the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy
Spirit. As already noted, Asa Mahan was
a friend of Charles Finney and it is also important to note that he was
friendly with the Palmers. Through
these connection he was to influence both the Holiness Revival and the Keswick
movement. Asa Mahan was the first person to publish a
complete book on the baptism of the Holy Spirit entitled, The Baptism of the
Holy Ghost[xxix]... It is in this volume that we encounter
Mahan’s use of Pentecostal language with its emphasis on power. Because of this one must ask, does his
doctrine stress power at the expense of purity? The purpose of this chapter is to
demonstrate that for Mahan, the baptism of the Holy Ghost is an endument with
power from on high so that one may live a holy life. This is not to deny that Mahan sees a close
connection between entire sanctification and the baptism of the Holy Ghost,
rather he affirms the connection but places the emphasis on power not
cleansing. However, it should be
acknowledged that Mahan believed that his teaching was consistent with the
holiness testimony of Methodism, Mahan said,
We may now clearly
apprehend, we remark once more, what will hereafter constitute the glory or the
shame of Methodism. The central article
of her creed is the great central truth of the Gospel, to wit: full and free
redemption in Jesus Christ. In the
holding and advocacy of that truth, her ministry and membership glory before
the world. In her early founders and favourite memoirs, Christ and the promises
of his grace are fully and distinctly revealed to all her membership and to all
the world as “a fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness.” Now if this denomination shall remain true
to her heaven-descended mission by continuing to hold and advocate that great
truth, and by a living faith shall exemplify its all purifying influence, both
before the Church and the world this will be her “wisdom and understanding,” in
the judgement of all nations, who shall hear of this great salvation.[xxx]
One cannot
do justice to Mahan’s views unless one sees his conscious dependence upon
Methodism. Although Mahan was not
Wesleyan in the totality of his theology, there is no doubt that he perceived
himself to be Wesleyan at this point.
Indeed Mahan would have rejected outright the later Pentecostal
developments as can be seen from this statement,
No careful reader of the Scriptures at the present time
confounds the gift or the promise of the Spirit with any miraculous
endowments. It is undeniable that these
endowments had for ages been in the world, while the “Holy Ghost was not given”
until after “Jesus was glorified.” We are also positively taught, as we have
seen, that “the sealing and earnest of the Spirit” were never accompanied,
except in a few instances, by any form of miraculous gifts. “The promise of the
Spirit” is to all believers in common.
Miraculous gifts may, or may not, be imparted to any, and never were
imparted but to a few.[xxxi]
Having seen
that Mahan saw himself to be in continuity with Wesleyan thinking, it is now
time to explore Mahan’s presentation of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, noting
both the continuities and the discontinuities with Wesleyan Theology.
In his
opening chapter Mahan makes it quite clear that he is speaking of the believer
being endued with power from on high; he
ties this into the subsequent nature of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Also,
Mahan emphasised that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was to be received
by faith. Mahan at this point seems to
be stating his doctrine more clearly than Finney. For Mahan the role of faith is vital and his
emphasis here certainly influenced holiness teaching and the later Pentecostal
movement. One paragraph from Mahan
illustrates this quite clearly,
The indwelling presence and power of the Spirit, “the baptism
of the Holy Ghost,” are, according to the express teachings of inspiration, to
be sought and received by faith in God’s word of promise, on the part of the
believer, after he has believed; just as pardon and eternal life are to be
sought by the sinner prior to justification. “How much more shall your heavenly
Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him.” Between the believer and the gift of the
Spirit, lies a divine promise: “the promise of the Spirit.” If this promise is not embraced by faith,
the gift, “the sealing and earnest of the Spirit,” will not be vouchsafed.[xxxii]
Statements
like those above, have appeared in both holiness and Pentecostal/Charismatic
publications showing the influence of Asa Mahan either directly or indirectly.
Mahan also
stressed that Jesus himself had been transformed by the baptism of the Holy
Spirit and, if this is the case, the believer is in more desperate need of
power for service.[xxxiii]
Mahan in his
exposition of Zechariah 13:1, brings together the themes of purity and power, he said,
But when the Holy Ghost falls upon the believer, and his soul
is “filled with the Spirit,” in that baptism of fire, of love, of light, and
joy in God, there is a cloudless apprehension of truth, and every truth
apprehended has transforming power upon the heart and character....
Now it is this higher form of experience and attainment, this
baptism of fire, of love, of power, and of spiritual purification, this
outpouring of the Spirit promised to the Church in these latter days, that
special reference is had in the text.[xxxiv]
Mahan
envisages a time of great moral and spiritual power coming upon the
church. He sees the baptism of the Holy
Ghost brining purification and power to
the church. Some of Mahan’s statements
at first glance seem to be Wesleyan, yet one finds that the power motif has the
predominance. Perhaps this is best
illustrated by a statement from the very end of the book,
There are two distinct and opposite states and relations in
which the believer in Jesus may be contemplated. In the one state he has repented of sin,
“believed to the saving of his soul,.”
Entertains sincere purposes of obedience, and is not utterly barren of
good works. In the other state, he has all these with “the power of the Spirit”
superadded..... In the latter state, the equally marked characteristics of that
experience are, courage and strength; “everlasting consolations, and good hope
through grace;” “victories by the blood of the Lamb and the word of his
testimony;” “full assurance of hope,” and “full assurance of
understanding;” “all-sufficiency in all
things,” and thereby “abounding unto every good work;” immortal fellowships and
“fullness of joy;” and God as “everlasting light,” while “the days of our
mourning are ended.”[xxxv]
Mahan
stressed the element of power in the baptism of the Holy Spirit but this was
always linked to holy living. Although
he mentions purification as a result of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, he has
moved away from the Wesleyan view that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is an act
of divine cleansing. Mahan believed in
entire sanctification and makes a connection between it and the baptism of the
Holy Spirit. Although Asa Mahan
emphasised power in his book, it is always power to lead a holy life in service
of a Holy God. He did not seek power
for power’s sake but for the glory of God.
[i]
George Peck Christian Perfection (Salem
,Ohio. Schmul Publishers .1990)
[ii]Timothy
Smith, The Promise of the Spirit (by
Charles Finney,) (Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers. 1980), 25
[iii]
Promise of the Spirit footnote 69,32.
[iv]
Daniel Steele Defense of Christian Perfection
(Salem, Ohio, Schmul Publishing, 1984),70
[v]
George Peck Christian Perfection.
(Salem, Ohio. Schmul Publishing, 1990), 3.
[vi]
Allan Coppedge ‘Entire Sanctification in Early American Methodism
1812-1835’. Wesleyan Theological
Journal 13
[vii]
J. L. Peters Christian Perfection and American Methodism, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 1985.)
[viii]
C. Finney Principles of Holiness. ( Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers
1984) 23.
[ix]
C. Finney Principles of Holiness 33.
[x]
C. Finney, The Promise of the Spirit
(Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers, 1980)
[xiv]
Lectures on Revival section 7. 79
[xv]
Lectures on Revival 80
[xvi]
Lectures on Revival. 278.
[xvii]
Lectures on Revival 281
[xviii]
See his introduction in The Promise of the Spirit 9-33..
[xix]
The Promise of the Spirit 259-263.
[xx]
The Promise of the Spirit. 262
[xxi]
The Promise of the Spirit 263-265
[xxii]
The Promise of the Spirit. 263-264
[xxiii]
John L Gresham Charles G. Finney’s Doctrine of the Baptism
of the Holy Spirit. (Peabody,
Hendrickson Publishers. 1987). 18.
[xxvi]
44 A.M.Hills, Fundamental Christian Theology vol..2 (Salem, Ohio. Schmul Publishing. 1980). 253
[xxvii]
45 Gary B McGee, Systematic Theology, (edited by Stanley Horton Springfield. Miss. Logion Press, 1995).
[xxviii]
Charles Finney Systematic Theology
(Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers 1994)
[xxix] Asa
Mahan. The Baptism of the Holy Ghost.
(Louisville, Ky. Pickett Publishing 1870)
[xxx] The
Baptism of the Holy Ghost 150
[xxxi] The
Baptism of the Holy Ghost. 113
[xxxii] The
Baptism of the Holy Ghost. 13
[xxxiii] The
Baptism of the Holy Ghost. 25
[xxxiv] The
Baptism of the Holy Ghost. 139-140
[xxxv] The
Baptism of the Holy Ghost. 212-213
No comments:
Post a Comment