Charles Finney and the
"Perseverance of the Saints"

Charles G. Finney (August 29, 1792 to August 16, 1875) was an important player in what is understood as the "Second Great Awakening" that took place in America in the early to mid 1800's. Many today see Finney as a heretic from hell, because he denied the transmission of original sin, while others hold him in high regards and refer to him as "The Father of Modern Revivalism". As history shows, Finney demanded repentance, spoke out against sin and called for obedience to the faith. The majority of evangelist (who support Finney in our day) seem to be wholly convinced that he protected mans freedom of choice (or free agency) and preached a sound Gospel message that was based upon mans faithfulness to God. Although this would seem to be the case (since Finney denied the imputation of Adams original sin, which means, the will is not in bondage to a sinful nature from birth), his wittings on election and reprobation PROVE him to be in complete agreement with the Calvinistic doctrine of perseverance, aka, eternal security.

It appears that many truth seekers have come across Charles G. Finney's powerful systematic theology and have failed to search out his background and throughly examine his various lectures. Before Finney would arrive at Oberlin College in 1835, he resigned from all of his duties at his law office in New York (at the age of 29) and began studying to become a licensed minister in the Presbyterian Church. Eventually, Finney obtained his goal of becoming an ordained preacher and fulfilled his calling to preach the Gospel. It appears that Finney would eventually doubt somewhat the fundamental doctrines he was taught within the Presbyterian denomination. However (as we will see below), Finney never completely a banded his (Presbyterian) roots and contended for the preservation of the saints by connecting together portions of Scripture from the Gospel of John where Jesus says, "none the Father has given Him will ever be lost" (Jn. 6:39).

"God is not only able to keep all that come to Christ or all true Christians, but He is also willing. But Christ has settled this question, as we have seen. All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me, and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me; And this is the Father's will which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life; and I will raise Him up at the last day" (John 6:37-40). Here, then, we have just seen these two points settled, namely, that God is able to save all saints, or all who at any time truly believe and come to Christ; and, that He is willing, or wills to do it. Now if He is both able and willing to keep and save all the saints, He certainly will do it" [Charles G. Finney's Systematic Theology - LECTURE 49].

The initial question we need to address is the fallacy of a systematic theology that uses the terminology of "free agency" and yet embraces a doctrine of election that secures the elects destiny from the foundation of the world and consequently places the reprobates (from all eternity) into hell fire. How Finney could NOT see this illogical error is beyond me and quite disturbing. By implying that man is free to exercise vice or virtue, while simultaneously elected (or reprobated) by God from the foundation of the world is a contradiction in terms and proof of falsehood. Either man is created free (creation Grace) by God and able to choose right or wrong (apart from Divine coercion) or man is NOT free and must be coerced to salvation through an application of "effectual Grace"(not to be confused with irresistible Grace) before he is able to respond to the Gospel. Finney said, "Free grace is always beforehand with free will", which really means, there is no free will unless God enables you to make a choice you previously could not make! 

"God has from eternity resolved upon the salvation of all the elect. This we have seen. No one of this number will ever be lost. These are given to Christ from eternity, as a seed to serve Him. The conversion, perseverance, and final salvation of the elect, we have seen to be secured. Their conversion, perseverance, and salvation, are secured by means of the grace of God in Christ Jesus, prevailing through the gospel so to influence their free will as to bring about this result" [Charles G. Finney's Systematic Theology - LECTURE 48].

In other words, only the individuals who were PRE-selected by God will be endowed with the ability through the Holy Spirit to genuinely repent, believe and persevere in the Gospel. On the contrary, the non-elect (or reprobates) are entirely disinclined to obey the Truth and are  unable to respond to God apart from being induced and tweaked through the drawing of the Holy Spirit. The question remains, if God from eternity resolved upon the salvation of all the elect (as Finney says), then why does God use means (drawing of the Holy Spirit) with the non-elect, provided he is certain they will not accept His offer? Finney answers,"because he designs that they shall be without excuse. He will demonstrate his willingness and their obstinacy, before the universe. He will rid his garments of their blood; and although he knows that their rejection of the offer will only enhance their guilt, and aggravate their deep damnation, still he will make the offer, as there is no other way in which to illustrate his infinite willingness to save them, and their perverse rejection of his grace." [Charles G. Finney's Doctrine of Election - Sermon 10].

This argument is invalid and makes little to no sense. Since the conversion, perseverance, and final salvation of the elect was secured from all eternity (meaning "no one of this number will ever be lost"), why is God said to "draw all men" through Christ to salvation, when in fact, only some could come to begin with (Jn. 6:44-45; 12:32)? In regards to the reprobate, Finney replies, "their rejection of the offer will only enhance their guilt", however, the UN-elects rejection to this offer (of salvation) was based on them not being selected in the beginning! Doesn't this mean they are incurring guilt and punishment over something they could not avoid, which means, they are not responsible but God is? In other words, if the UN-elected cannot be saved apart from the "effectual" influence of the Holy Ghost, doesn't this mean that the elected can never fall away once they receive the Holy Spirit? Is this not beginning to resemble the doctrine of election put forth by John Calvin and many others? Furthermore, how are we to understand Paul's statement about reprobates perishing "because they did not receive a love of the truth that they might be saved", when in fact, there END was ultimately established when the elect were chosen before the world was (2 Thess. 2 :10)?

"The doctrine of election may be inferred from the fact that with God there is no past or future time, but that all eternity is present time to him. The beginning and the end of time, all the events of time and eternity, past to us, the judgment day and eternity beyond, with all their events, are present to his mind. The name and character and eternal destiny of every creature are present to him; and that is a very unworthy view of God, which exhibits him as having no definite plan in relation to all the concerns of his vast empire: indeed, it is virtually denying God, and robbing him of the essential attributes of his nature" [Charles G. Finney's Doctrine of Election - Sermon 10].

According to Finney, God exist outside of time, which means, the past, present and future are equally real to Him. If we compare this to his previous statements of "God has from eternity (past, present, future) resolved upon the salvation of all the elect, this we have seen, no one of this number will ever be lost" it is easy to observe that Finney retained his Presbyterian roots which argues for an individual election (by God's arbitrary choice), predestination and perseverance in the faith. In other words, Finney was a closet Calvinist! How he could affirm "free will" on one hand, reject the notion of original sin on the other and contend for (absolute) pre-destination ("no one of this number will ever be lost")is truly mind boggling! The major problem with Finney's "eternal now" view on God is that it eliminates the "present tense" (in the original Greek) and assures the believers salvation BEFORE they "patiently endure" till the end (Matt. 10:22; Heb. 6:15; 10:36). This position also births the PRE-forgiveness of future sins (as taught by the many today), necessitates eternal security for the believer (upon being effectually called) and eliminates the possibility of God changing His mind and relenting from the doom He has pronounced against his foes.

"...And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them. Then word came to the king of Nineveh; and he arose from his throne and laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published throughout Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; do not let them eat, or drink water. But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God; yes, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands.  Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish? Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it" (Jon. 3:4-10).

Clearly, the absolute foreknowledge of God does NOT automatically pre-determine the outcome of individuals salvation or events. Why? Because God can change His mind in accordance with man's choices and actions (as shown above). If this was NOT so, then why does Paul warn the "elect" they reap what they sow and to examine themselves to be sure they have not reprobated from the faith (2 Co. 13:5; Gal. 6:7-9)? Why would Peter, (who was "elect" according to the foreknowledge of God) WARN the beloved that they can fall from there steadfast endurance in Christ and be lead away with the error of the wicked (1 Pe. 1:2; 2 Pe. 3:17)? What purpose would these passages (and many others) serve, if the genuine believer could NEVER shipwreck there faith or be cut off by God due to neglect or UN-belief (Jn. 15:1-6; Ro. 11:19-23; 1 Tim. 1:18-20)? In other words, if God cannot change His mind, then it follows,"none the Father has given Him will ever be lost" (Jn. 6:39). What about Finney -- what did he really say about these matters? Many (who have most likely never read his lectures on "election") understand him as teaching a conditional security for the believer, however, is this true? Did he really teach a true saint (or elect), who's "conversion, perseverance, and final salvation" has been secured from all eternity could ever fall into eternal ruin and away from the faith? Let's see. Regarding 2 Pe. 2:9-22, Finney says the following:

"Now observe, the apostle calls the persons of whom he speaks "wells without water: clouds that are carried with a tempest," that is, without rain. His whole description of them shows, that he is speaking of false professors or hypocrites. But it is inferred, that they are fallen saints, because it is said they have "forsaken the right way, and are gone astray after the error of Balaam," etc. But this does not necessarily imply that they were in heart ever in the right way, but that they have forsaken the right way, so far as the outward life is concerned: in which respect they had doubtless been in the right way, or they would not have been admitted to membership in the church."

"But it is said of these false professors, that "they allure through lust and much wantonness those who were clean escaped from those who live in error." But neither does this necessitate the conclusion, that they had escaped in heart from those that lived in error, but merely that they had for the time being outwardly abandoned their idolatrous practices and companions, and had made a profession, and put on the form of Christianity."

"But it is also said, "For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the latter end is worse than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire" (2 Peter 2:20-22)."

Neither does this necessitate the conclusion, that they had in heart escaped from the pollutions that are in the world, but merely that they had outwardly reformed. What is said in the last verse seems to favor this construction. Verse 22: "But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." That is, the dog has returned to his vomit, because he remains a dog, and is not changed; and the sow that is washed to her wallowing in the mire, because she is still a sow, and her washing has not changed her nature. So, the apostle would say, by returning to their former ways, do the persons in question show, that they have experienced no radical change; but on the contrary, that they are only like a washed sow, sinners still, who have been only outwardly cleansed, while within they are the same as ever. This appears to me to be all that can fairly be made out of this passage."  [Charles G. Finney's Systematic Theology - LECTURE 51]

Is this passage really speaking of false professors and hypocrites who were NEVER saved to begin with? According to Finney (and ALL eternal security teachers) is must be since those who fall away were NEVER converted to begin with! This application is commonly used by advocates to reinforce UN-conditional salvation (for the elect) and to explain away various warnings found through out the New Testament. For example, Hebrews 6:4-6 reveals that there have been believers (who were partakers of the Holy Spirit!) that "have fallen away" and consequently held Jesus to open shame. How could people who WERE (past tense) "partakers of the Holy Spirit" never saved to begin with? Likewise, Heb. 10:26-31 speaks of a believer willfully sinning against there (full and complete) knowledge of the truth. What is the end for this person? The Hebrew writer says, "Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he WAS (past tense) sanctified a common thing and insulted the Spirit of Grace? For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay." says the Lord. And again, "The Lord will judge His people!"

Finney goes to great lengths to explain to us that Peter was addressing counterfeit hypocrites who had merely cleansed the OUTSIDE of the cup, while the inside remained full of hypocrisy and lawlessness (2 Pe. 2:20-22). However, the apostle clearly states these believers had "escaped (past tense) the pollutions of the world", which means, they were "partakers of the Divine nature who had escaped (past tense) the corruption that is in the world through lust" (2 Pe. 1:4)! (Note: The words translated in the KJV 'clean escaped' from those who live in error, is the same word and expression used by Christ in John 8:36 where He (Jesus) states, "if Son sets you Free, you are free INDEED"! Peter is using the EXACT same expression here to describe these converts.) How could Finney NOT have known this? His arguments and laced conjecture that strain to prove they were merely hypocrites fall flat on this passage. This is the ONLY reason why Peter would conclude, that if they shall again be "entangled therein and overcome, the latter end is worse than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog returns to his own vomit again; and the sow that was (past tense) washed to her wallowing in the mire" (2 Peter 2:20-22). In other words, these people WERE saved to begin with, washed in the blood and purified by faith (Acts 15:9; Jn. 15:3; Eph. 5:26; Rev. 1:5)! Why else would Peter go on in the same Epistle to WARN the beloved (or elect), of the "error of the wicked" and falling (which means they were standing!) away from steadfast endurance in Christ (2 Pe. 3:17)?

Regarding 1 Co. 10:1-13. Finney says this:

”It is said of this passage that the history of the Israelites is here introduced as a warning to real christians; consequently the apostle must have assumed that those of the Israelites who fell were real saints, or there would have been no pertinency or force in his allusion. To this I reply that the pertinency and force of the allusion appear to me to have been as follows. The Israelites composed the visible church of God. At the time he mentioned, they were all professors of religion. All possessed great light and privileges compared with the rest of the world; they therefore felt confident of their acceptance with God, and of their consequent safety and salvation. But with many of them, it turned out, that God was not well pleased. Some of them turned out to be idolaters and were destroyed. Now, says the apostle, let this be a warning to you. You are in like manner professors of religion. You are all members of the visible church of God, to which the promises are made. You have great light and privileges when compared with the world at large. You may think yourselves to be altogether safe, and sure of final salvation. But remember that the history of the ancient church is written for your benefit; and the destruction of those just alluded to, is recorded for your admonition. Be not high minded, but fear. Do not be presumptuous because you are members in good standing in the visible church and possess great light and privileges, but remember that many before you, who were like you in these respects, have lost their souls; "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest He fall."

“But it may be said that the apostle speaks of those as falling who had eaten of the spiritual meat, and drank of the rock Christ, and therefore must have been real saints. To this I reply that the apostle does indeed use universal language and speak of all the Israelites as doing these things; but who will soberly contend that he intended really to be understood as affirming that all the Israelites that passed through the sea &c., were true saints? What he says does not necessitate the conclusion that any of them were truly regenerated saints. They were all baptised unto Moses; that is, were all introduced into the covenant of which he was the mediator. They all ate of the same spiritual bread, that is, the manna on which the Lord fed them. They all drank of the spiritual rock; that is, of the water that gushed from the rock when Moses smote it with his rod, and which rock was a type of Christ, as was also the manna. Now, does the apostle mean to say that all the Israelites understood the typical meaning of these waters and this manna, and that they were all truly spiritual or regenerate persons?I think not. All that he intended, appears to me to have been that all the church of the Jews at the time were so far partakers of the grace of Christ as to receive this baptism and as to have this spiritual or typical bread and water, and also to enjoy great light and much miraculous instruction, but that nevertheless with many of them God was displeased. Their being baptized in their passage through the Red Sea, did not imply that they so understood and consented to it at the time, nor does the assertion that they ate the spiritual food, and drank of the spiritual rock, imply any thing more than that they enjoyed these great and high privileges, and counted themselves as very secure in consequence of them. It is certainly straining the sense to make the apostle affirm that all the Israelites were real saints who passed through the sea. Indeed it is doubtful whether he intended to affirm the real piety of any of them. It was not essential”  [Charles G. Finney's Systematic Theology - LECTURE 51]

Again, we have Finney falling in line with all the modern day eternal security teachers and explaining away the severe warnings left by the apostle in order to preserve his doctrinal position of eternal security. Did Paul teach Once Saved Always Saved? If so, why then would he tell us "I discipline my own body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified" (1 Co. 9:27)? Likewise, why would the apostle WARN fellow believers to do the same ("examine themselves") if there was no possibility of becoming "reprobate" (or cast away) from the faith after initial conversion took place (2 Co. 13:5)? Didn't Paul teach you "reap what you sow" and that you could "shipwreck" your faith by NOT by not competing "according to the rules"" or failing to "finish the race"that is set before you (1 Co. 9:24-27; Gal. 6:7-9; 1 Tim. 1:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:5; 4:7; Heb. 12:1)? How about the great falling away that must come before the day of the Lord will manifest (2 Thess. 2:3)? How can a false convert fall away (or apostate #646) from a religion he was NEVER apart of? You see, Paul never taught true believers were immune to falling away, for if he did he would have denied the second advent of his Lord!

Only by conjecture can Finney paint a picture in your mind that those Paul speaks of in 1 Co. 10:1-13, were NEVER truly regenerate to begin with. This he has to do, for if they were saved to begin with his doctrine of "perseverance" is eliminated! Paul said in reference to the children of Israel, "They were all baptized into Moses" and Finney says, "that is, were all introduced into the covenant of which he was the mediator" (1 Co. 10:2)! Again, the apostle states,"They all ate of the same spiritual bread and drank of the spiritual rock (Christ) and to this Finney replies, "Now, does the apostle mean to say that all the Israelites understood the typical meaning of these waters and this manna, and that they were all truly spiritual or regenerate persons? I think not." Now, if true believers can never go astray after being converted to God, then why did Paul warn, "Therefore consider the goodness AND severity of God: on those (Jews) who fell severity; but towards you (Gentiles) goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off" (Ro. 11:22) Why were the Jews cut off by God to begin with? Was it not UN-belief, which is, disobedience (Ro. 11:19-22; Heb. 3:16-19)?

Clearly, Finney's premise is only the elect (who's conversion, perseverance, and salvation, are secured by means of the grace of God in Christ Jesus) are effectually drawn through grace and saved. He explains, “this grace I regard as vouchsafed to me in the covenant of grace or as a reward of Christ's obedience unto death. It is pledged to secure the salvation of those whom the Father has from eternity given to the Son. The Holy Spirit is given to them to secure their salvation, and I have no expectation that any others will ever be saved. But these, every one of them, will surely be saved. There is, there can be no hope for any others. Others are able to repent, but they will not. Others might be saved if they would believe and comply with the conditions of salvation. but they will not.”  [Charles G. Finney's Systematic Theology - LECTURE 51]

The question is, if only the elect obtain an "effectual" or enabling call from God, then ultimately salvation is based on His choice alone, since no one can be saved who receives NOT the persuading influence to do what God has required (which is to ultimately endure according to Matt. 10:22 & Rev. 2:10) ! Therefore, it stands to reason that if a person has been effectually called by God to salvation they can never fall away since "He secures their voluntary obedience." If this is the truth, then why would Paul WARN him who thinks he stands to take heed lest he fall (1 Co. 10:12)? According to Finney, the elect can never fall, which means, Paul was really warning UN-saved people that they could fall from the faith they were not even apart of (1 Co. 10:12)! Finney's perseverance lectures also reveal that that King David ultimately never lost his salvation even upon committing acts of murder and adultery (2 Sam. 11-12 ) Since he was elect, this must mean he was never lost (or disqualified) in between the many months he remained UN-repented over the situation which displeased the Lord (2 Sam. 11:27; Psa. 51). Therefore, as an elect, he was NEVER in danger of losing his soul, which means, he retained salvation even while committing acts of sin (Jude 3-4). Thus, all the warnings from Paul (and others) about sins that disqualify believers from the kingdom are really written to the NON believers, not the saints, since the saints can never be lost (1 Co. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:5-7; Rev. 21:8; 22:15)!

The eighth chapter of Romans seems to settle the question, or rather is of itself a clear proof of the doctrine we are examining... If Paul in the eighth of Romans does not settle the question that all true saints will be saved how could it be settled? Let us in few words sum up the argument as he here presents it:
 
We are saved already in anticipation or in hope, and only by hope, for as yet we have not received our crown...The grounds of this hope are that we are in Christ Jesus, have the spirit of Christ, spirit of adoption. We walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. This Spirit witnesses that we are children and heirs of God. He makes intercession for us according to the will of God. We also know that all things work together for good to them who love God, for they are the called according to his purpose. They who are called, that is, effectually called, are called in conformity with their predestination to be conformed to the image of the Son of God. Hence those who are thus predestinated are called and justified and glorified. Therefore no one can lay any thing to the charge of God's elect. God justifies, and who shall condemn them? Christ died for them, yea, rather, has risen and makes intercession for them. God withheld not his Son, and of course will withhold from Christians nothing that is essential to secure their salvation. Wherefore he concludes that nothing shall be able to separate us from the love of God...

"...I know that to this it has been replied, that although nothing else can separate us from the love of God, yet we may separate ourselves from his love...To this I answer, true we may or can do so, but the question is, shall we or will any of the elected and called do so? No, indeed; for this is the thing which the apostle intended to affirm, namely, the certainty of the salvation of all true saints. The apostle manifestly in this passage assumes or affirms that all who ever truly love God are elect or are chosen to be conformed to the image of his Son; and are called and sanctified, and justified, in conformity with such predestination...If this is not his meaning, what is? If this is not his meaning, what ground of hope do we, after all, find in what he says?” [Charles G. Finney's Systematic Theology - LECTURE 49]

Finney (like all eternal security teachers) alludes to Romans chapter 8 to confirm individual election from the foundation of the world. According to Paul, we are to compare "spiritual with spiritual", that is, Scripture with Scripture (1 Co. 2:13-16). Why? For this very reason! Indeed Romans 8 may imply a PRE-destinational plan by God, if NOT balanced out with all the other Scriptures found in the New Testament. Are we to take this one snippet of Scripture and make it the entire Gospel like so many have done with other parts of the Sacred witting (Jn. 3:16; Eph. 2:8-9)? If you do, you will be forever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 3:7)! Beware! We must understand that Paul (who spoke of election & predestination), also spoke of reprobation and disqualification according to the deeds done in the body whether good or bad (2 Co. 5:10). Again, he says, you reap what you sow. According to John, the love of God consist and manifest in those who "keep His commandments", which must mean, the elect obey Christ from their heart (by faith) and must continue (in the faith) until the end to be saved (Jn. 14:15; Ro. 6:17; 1 Co. 15:1-2; Col. 1:23; Heb. 5:9; 1 Jn. 5:3).

“If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:31-32).

"And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 10:22).

"For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end" (Heb. 3:14).
The Bible is clear, you must abide IN Christ daily and remain steadfast until the end to defeat the roaring lion who is seeking to devour (Lk. 9:23; Ro. 2:7-8; 1 Pe. 5:8-9) It is only when you "keep yourself in the love of God", that God will keep you from stumbling (Jude 21,24). Pre-destination, election and reprobation must be understood in the context of "whosoever will come", rather than only those who were PRE-selected are invited (Matt. 23:37; Acts 7:51; Rev. 22:17). God is NOT a respecter of persons and can change His mind according to the Scriptures (Exd. 32:31-35; Jer. 18:8; 26:3; 32:35; Jon. 3:10; Ro. 2:11; Col. 3:25; 1 Pe. 1:17). Jesus clearly informed us that the Prodigal son was dead and became alive again, which means, when the righteous turn from doing righteousness they will (spiritually) perish in their sins (Ezk. 18:24; Lk. 15:24,32; Ro. 8:13; 1 Jn. 3:7). As follows, the believers entrance into the kingdom of God is contingent upon his "CONTINUANCE" in the faith, which means, salvation is conditional (Matt. 10:22; Ro. 6:16-17;1 Co. 15:1-2; Col. 1:23; Jas. 1:25; Heb. 5:9; 6:15)!

Examine it for yourself and you will discover that Charles G Finney's teachings on election put him in the same camp as Spurgeon, Calvin and many others who are in direct connection with the Presbyterian Church. Again, Finney's writings reveal he  NEVER forsook his denominational roots and would be number with the Calvinist of our day (although they would vehemently DENY due his denial of original sin). The allusion here is that many believe Finney implored believers to repent, exercise faith, obey from the heart and bear the fruits of righteousness,when in reality he was teaching, only those who execute such behavior were simply living out what was already determined from all eternity. Therefore, all the talk about "free moral agency" under God's "moral government" is all hype, the reality is, ONLY the elect will obey and no others will. I would beseech you truth seekers out there to sincerely RE-evaluate the men you exalt from the past in "Christianity". Finney's lectures clearly put him in the same camp as the modern day eternal security teachers and reveal he did NOT embrace (nor defend) the "freedom of the will". Remember, Jesus said, "He who endures to the end shall be saved", NOT you will endure to the end if you were truly saved to begin with (Matt. 10:22)!

TheSinMustStop.org