Finney Again

Recently I've heard multiple references to the well-known and much beloved preacher, Charles Finney. I don't know how many of those who love Finney know what he believed. He was best known as the "Father of Modern Revivalism" and a leader in the Second Great Awakening (1830-1831). He is credited with being the forerunner of Pentecostalism, beginning with what" he described as "a mighty baptism of the Holy Ghost." He started the altar call and the "anxious bench" near the front of the revival hall for people to come if they were concerned about their spiritual condition. Finney is highly venerated in many circles. Not all. Way back in 2006 I did some research into the theology of Charles Finney. What I found was disturbing. Here is what I wrote back then.
_______________________

From Finney’s Systematic Theology

On a Christian who sins:

“Whenever he sins, he must, for the time being, cease to be holy. This is self-evident. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned; he must incur the penalty of the law of God...If it be said that the precept is still binding upon him, but that with respect to the Christian, the penalty is forever set aside, or abrogated, I reply, that to abrogate the penalty is to repeal the precept; for a precept without penalty is no law. It is only counsel or advice. The Christian, therefore, is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys; or Antinomianism is true...In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground.”

On God’s demand for perfection:

“...full present obedience is a condition of justification. But again, to the question, can man be justified while sin remains in him? Surely he cannot, either upon legal or gospel principles, unless the law be repealed...But can he be pardoned and accepted, and justified, in the gospel sense, while sin, any degree of sin, remains in him? Certainly not.”

On the Reformation's formula "simultaneously justified and sinful":

"This error has slain more souls, I fear, than all the universalism that ever cursed the world. … Whenever a Christian sins he comes under condemnation, and must repent and do his first works, or be lost."

On Original Sin:

"anti-scriptural and nonsensical dogma"

On Atonement:

The first thing we must note about the atonement is that Christ could not have died for anyone else's sins than his own. His obedience to the law and his perfect righteousness were sufficient to save him, but could not legally be accepted on behalf of others.

Why did Christ die, if not for our Atonement?

"The atonement would present to creatures the highest possible motives to virtue. Example is the highest moral influence that can be exerted...If the benevolence manifested in the atonement does not subdue the selfishness of sinners, their case is hopeless."

On the substitutionary atonement:

"(The doctrine) assumes that the atonement was a literal payment of a debt, which we have seen does not consist with the nature of the atonement...It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one"

On the new birth as a gift:

"Regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness to love or benevolence," (as moved by the moral influence of Christ's moving example). "Original or constitutional sinfulness, physical regeneration, and all their kindred and resulting dogmas, are alike subversive of the gospel, and repulsive to the human intelligence."

On Imputed Righteousness:

“The doctrine of an imputed righteousness, or that Christ's obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption." After all, Christ's righteousness "could do no more than justify himself. It can never be imputed to us...It was naturally impossible, then, for him to obey in our behalf." This "representing of the atonement as the ground of the sinner's justification has been a sad occasion of stumbling to many.”

On Justification by Faith Alone:

"Present sanctification, in the sense of present full consecration to God, is another condition...of justification. Some theologians have made justification a condition of sanctification, instead of making sanctification a condition of justification. But this we shall see is an erroneous view of the subject."

On the Sovereignty of God:

"There is nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature. It consists entirely in the right exercise of the powers of nature. It is just that, and nothing else. When mankind becomes truly religious, they are not enabled to put forth exertions which they were unable before to put forth. They only exert powers which they had before, in a different way, and use them for the glory of God."

**************

Thus, in Finney's theology, God is not sovereign, man is not a sinner by nature, the atonement is not a true payment for sin, justification by imputation is insulting to reason and morality, and the new birth is simply the effect of successful techniques. So ... why is Charles Finney held in such high regard in Evangelical circles? Why is Finney's approach the approach of the day? Finney originated the Altar Call. He believed that if we get people worked up enough, we could get them to respond. He is the father of many of today's "givens". Is he really a good choice for source material?