Searching for the Truth in the King James Bible;
Finding it, and passing it on to you.

Steve Van Nattan







Charles Finney
Father of Satanic Counterfeit Salvation

By David and Linda Liben





You will learn here that Charles Finney, the attorney turned evangelist, came to town, allegedly with a revival in his grip, and when he left, thousands of souls were twice the children of hell that he was. Finney was a blasphemer, an antichrist, and you Baptist and Charismatic preachers use his techniques and damn your thousands to hell. How dare you bastard sons judge Calvinists who refuse to question the salvation of those who once professed faith in The Lord Jesus Christ?

Have you ever met a victorious Christian who was saved at a Billy Graham Crusade? I have met one in all my life. He was a missionary in Ethiopia, and he was saved at Graham's crusade in the UK. Otherwise, Graham's trial is every bit as dismal as that of Charles Finney.


(Date: 10/14/1999) After nearly 50 years of apologetics ministry and at the age of 85, Christian growth author Miles J. Stanford stepped into the Lord's glory on September 21, 1999. In addition to his prolific writings, he maintained worldwide correspondence with scores of hungry-hearted believers, typically signing his doctrinally rich letters with "Resting in Him." Our brother will be dearly missed. We present here his position paper on Charles Finney's unscriptural theology and man-made methods of evangelism.

(Finney's End)
by Miles J. Stanford



ORIGINAL SIN -- We deny that the human constitution is morally depraved, because it is impossible that sin should be a quality of the substance of the soul or body. It is, and must be, a quality of choice or intention, and not of substance. To represent the constitution as sinful, is to represent God, who is the author of the constitution, as the author of sin. What ground is there for the assertion that Adam's nature became in itself sinful by the fall? This is a groundless, not to say ridiculous, assumption, and an absurdity (Finney's Systematic Theology, pp. 249,250).

REGENERATION -- Regeneration implies an entire present change of moral character, that is, a change from entire sinfulness to entire holiness (Ibid., p. 291).

JUSTIFICATION BASED UPON SANCTIFICATION -- We see that, if a righteous man forsake his righteousness, and die in his sin, he must sink to hell. Whenever a Christian sins he becomes under condemnation, and must repent and do his first works, or be lost (Ibid., p. 124).

OBEDIENCE -- That which the precept demands must be possible to the subject. That which demands a natural impossibility cannot be moral law. To talk of inability to obey moral law is to talk nonsense (Ibid., p. 2).

ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION -- It is self-evident, that entire obedience to God's law is possible on the ground of natural ability. To deny this, is to deny that a man is able to do as well as he can. The very language of the law is such as to level its claims to the capacity of the subject, however great or small that capacity may be.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength." Here then it is plain, that all the law demands, is the exercise of whatever strength we have, in the service of God. Now, as entire sanctification consists in perfect obedience to the law of God, and as the law requires nothing more than the right use of whatever strength we have, it is, of course, forever settled, that a state of entire sanctification is attainable in this life, on the ground of natural ability (Ibid., p. 407).

THE SECURITY OF THE BELIEVER -- It is not intended that saints, or the truly regenerated, cannot fall from grace, and be finally lost, by natural possibility. It must be naturally possible for all moral agents to sin at any time. Saints on earth and in heaven can by natural possibility apostatize and fall, and be lost. Were not this naturally possible, there would be no virtue in perseverance (Ibid., p. 550).

Editor: Steve Van Nattan-- This is the basis of all Fundamental Baptist altar calls. Though most Baptists claim to believe that the believer is eternally secure, when they are giving an alter call, they become practical Pelagians, and they do everything possible to cast doubt on the believer's salvation in order to get a response and to get movement toward the front of the meeting and fill the carpet in front of them. This gives the impression, to their hungry egos, and to the congregation, that their pastor produces results. It also give the hireling pastor numbers to brag on when he goes to the next pastor's rally.


Finney was a man who taught quite definitely that, if one applied a given technique, one could have a revival at any time. This is the essence of Finney's teaching in his books on revivals. But history has surely proved that Finney was quite wrong.

Many have tried to plan revivals by using his technique and have done so honestly, sincerely, and thoroughly, but the desired revival has not come. One of Finney's cardinal errors was to confuse an "evangelistic campaign" and a revival, and to forget that the latter is always given in the sovereignty of God. It never results from the adoption of certain techniques, methods, or organization.

Indeed, in copies of the Oberlin Evangelist containing articles by Finney (after his period as an evangelist and when he had become a professor of theology), there are indications that the writer himself had become somewhat suspicious of his own techniques.

There are statements written by Finney such as the following:

"If I had my time over again I would preach nothing but holiness. The converts of my revivals are a disgrace to Christianity!"

"If I had the strength to go through the churches again, instead of preaching to convert sinners, I would preach to bring the churches to the spiritual standard of holy living."

The suggestion is that the tremendous pressure which this evangelist's methods brought to bear upon the will and emotions, produced only temporary results (Conversions, Psychological and Spiritual, p. 31).


FINNEY wrote:

In a revival, the Christian's heart is liable to get crusted over, and lose its relish for divine things; his unction and prevalence in prayer abate, and then he must be renewed again. It is impossible to keep him in such a state as not to do injury to the work, unless he passes through such a process every few days. I have never labored in revivals in company with any one who would keep in the work and be fit to manage revival continually, who did not pass through this process of breaking down as often as once in every two or three weeks (E.E. Shelhamer, Finney On Revival, p. 63).

JAMES BOYLE -- As a co-worker with Finney, Boyle wrote on December 25th, 1834:

Dear brother Finney, let us look over the fields where you and others have labored as revival ministers, and what is now their moral state? What was their condition within three months after we left them? I have visited and revisited many of these fields, and groaned in spirit to see the sad, frigid, carnal, contentious state into which the churches have fallen--and fallen very soon after our first departure from them (B.B. Warfield, Perfectionism, p. 26).

ASA MAHAN -- wrote:

The people were left like a dead coal which could not be re-ignited; the pastors were shorn of all their spiritual power, and the evangelists--and I was personally acquainted with nearly all of them--I cannot recall a single man, brother Finney and father Nash excepted, who did not after a few years lose his unction, and become equally disqualified for the office of evangelist and that of pastor (Ibid., p. 27).

No individual, I believe, ever disciplined Christians so severely and with such intense and tireless patience as my brother Finney. Appalled at the backsliding which followed his revivals of 1831-32, his most earnest efforts were put forth to induce among believers permanence in the divine life. In accomplishing this he knew of but one method: absolute and fixed renunciation of sin, consecration to God, and purpose of obedience.

During his pastorate at Chatham Street Chapel in New York City, for example, he held for weeks in succession special meetings in his church for perfecting his work, and never were a class of poor creatures carried through a severer process of discipline than were these.

Years afterward, as their pastor informed me, those believers affirmed that they have never recovered from the internal weakness and exhaustion which had resulted from the terrible discipline through which Mr. Finney had carried them, and this was all the good that had resulted from his efforts.

When he came to Oberlin, and entered upon the duties of his professorship, he felt that God had given him a blessed opportunity to realize in perfection his ideal of a ministry for the churches. He had before him a mass of talented and promising theological students, who had implicit confidence in the wisdom of their teacher, and with equal sincerity would follow his instructions and admonitions.

He accordingly, for months in succession, gathered together those students at stated seasons, instructed them most carefully in regard to the nature of the renunciation of sin, consecration to Christ, and purpose of obedience, required of them.

Then, under his teachings and admonitions, they would renew their renunciations, consecrations and purpose of obedience, with all the intensity and fixedness of resolve of which their natures were capable. The result, in every case, was one and the same: not the new life, and joy and peace, and power that was anticipated, but groaning bondage under the law of sin and death.

At the commencement, and during the process of each meeting, their confessions and renunciations, their solemn consecrations and vows of obedience, were renewed, if possible, with fuller determination than ever before.

Each meeting, however, was closed with the same dirge song: "Look, how we grovel here below," or, "Where is the blessedness I knew, when first I saw the Lord?" or, "Return, O Holy Dove, return." And as they went out, not their songs of joy and gladness were heard, but their groans became more and more terribly audible (Autobiography, pp. 244,245).

QUESTION -- How would you like to have Mr. Finney hold a series of "revival" meetings in your church? Do you recognize any of his tactics in present day "revival" meetings?

"Grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly" (2 Pet. 3:18; 1 Pet. 5:2).

More of Miles Stanford's position papers are available at Miles J. Stanford frames site (


IMHO you and some others are over reacting to the words "cell groups." You cannot put them all in one "box" any more than you can put all churches or denominations in one box. That is just plain old common horse sense. Evangelism is the key, unless you are a Calvinist. You have given me a good idea though. I might start a newsletter called "The New Testament and Jesus Watch News" or something like that. Or maybe "Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever Watch News." Also, unity with Rome will never happen with those that are truly following the Lord in this great revival.

Bill S.

Answer: You might try researching these issues, yourself, unless they're keeping you too busy engaging in strategic spiritual warfare, synchronized prayer, passing through prayer tunnels and/or pinned to the floor, all of which may sound Christian to you, but not to me, even though we both own Bibles. (No offense intended.) You know, Bill, there really are books on how to turn your church into a cell-based church, conferences on the same subject, and courses in church growth that teach the same exact model. These books, conferences, and courses aren't talking about some benign form of cell groups.

Even though a few old-time pastors still use that term to describe home Bible studies, the cell-church model that is consistently taught has no room for Bible studies (not in the cell, not in the zone, and not at the worship center). Putting all Christians, however nominal, including Catholics, into the same "box" is exactly what they're trying to do. Tell me there are no Catholics in the "Revival" and I'll call you a liar.

Please explain to me (or admit you can't) why unity with Rome will never happen to those in "this great revival" -- the "river" -- when so many leading "revivalists" and "nonrevivalists" (Silvoso, Wimber, Wagner, Cho, Palau, Bright, Hayford, McCartney, Robertson, Winter, Trask, Dobson, Colson, Graham, etc.) believe that Catholics are Christians who don't need to be evangelized (only revived if not already charismatic enough) and also believe that Christianity must be unified, regardless of doctrinal differences, in order to effectively evangelize the world. Isn't this unity exactly what the "prophets" are now prophesying, as if on cue?

Are you in this "river" or aren't you, Bill? Either get with the whole program, or get back to biblical Christianity, or risk being found lukewarm. Explain why the AD2000 "network of networks" -- also described as a river by its head honcho (in his "dream" and his "vision") -- and the New Apostolic Reformation -- also described as a river by its seers and prophets (in countless dreams and visions) -- aren't the same "river" you're wading in now. (That Brownsville doesn't use the word "apostolic" might be a straw for you to clutch, but a straw's not much use in keeping the tide from rolling in).

Look into the leaders -- those on top, not some minor player like Kilpatrick or Hill -- and prove to me they don't teach the same lame Latter Rain. Your eyes might be opened, because I know you really believe, in the new heart Jesus gave you, that the Bible is right, and that the Bible tells us, not just who our battle is really against, but how we are to conduct that battle -- and not to expect a good harvest from bad seed.

"Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain" (Psalms 127:1).

"But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up" (Matthew 15:13).

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it" (Matthew 7:24-27).

I'm no Calvinist, Bill. As I told you before, I'm no "-ist" or "-ic" or "-al" of any sort.

"Martin Luther said that God’s truth is like a drunkard trying to ride a horse: prop him up on one side and he topples over on the other. Balance is indeed hard to achieve in applying God’s truth no less than in understanding it. We are always in danger of pushing some biblical principle to an extreme." (The Speaker’s Quote Book)

"Don't call yourselves Lutherans. Who is Luther but a miserable bag of dust and ashes? Call yourselves 'Christians' after Him who died for you!" (Martin Luther)

David and Linda Liben
Delusion & Apostasy Watch News
"Let no man deceive you by any means:
for that day will not come, except there
come a falling away first..." 2 Thes. 2:


Link Showing what a Devil Finney was

Our journal is also attacked by Phil (MacArthur's shill) Johnson. On this page he make a typical
snob comment without proving his accusation. However; his data on Finney seems to be useful,
and I am not afraid of my readers reading what jerk Evangelicals think of me, so the Finney page is useful.

Link to the site of a Montreal Pastor on easy believism