The Burned-Over District Part 2: Charles Grandison Finney
Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875) is often credited as the leader of the Second Great Awakening. He was a New School Presbyterian. He was a passionate revivalist preacher from 1825-1835 in the area of Western New York which he would later give the moniker “The Burned-Over District.” He was an advocate of Christian perfectionism and in favor of social reforms.
The American Pelagius
Finney, though technically Presbyterian, outright rejected Presbyterian theology. However, he was not merely Arminian. He went way, way beyond historic Arminianism which affirms to a large degree the fall of man. No, Finney was a Pelagian. Who was Pelagius? He was a Fifth Century monk who traveled to Rome and was horrified by the sin and licentiousness of those in the city calling themselves “Christian.” According to author Michael Bunker:
Pelagius looked at a people who professed Christianity but were engaged in open sin and rebellion against God, and said, “Why do these people act this way?” Of course, most of us recognize in the behavior of lost men the ultimate cause of all sinful behavior – THE FALL. But Pelagius was not willing to believe that the fall of man had polluted all men, and that we, as the Bible says, are born totally “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). Pelagius believed that the fall affected only Adam, and therefore the rest of humanity was born with an untainted “free will.”1
Pelagius was a humanist. He denied original sin and taught that sinfulness was not a universal human condition that we find ourselves in; he taught that we had a perfect free will untainted by sin that could choose to follow either Adam’s example or Christ’s example.2 Michael Bunker continues his diagnosis of Pelagius:
Pelagius, as a humanist, could not fathom that God would command that which it was impossible for men in their own flesh to perform. He had committed the ultimate mistake in trying to “figure out” why God does things the way He declares that He does them:
“thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set thee in order before thine eyes.” (Psalm 50:21).
It is ALWAYS a mistake to think that God should do things the way that WE would do them. To project human parameters and human reasoning onto God will always lead to heresy and error.
Pelagius figured that since God had commanded to “be ye perfect”, then it must be possible for man to be perfect, act perfectly and eventually merit the gift of a heavenly reward due to that perfection. He preached that the human will was completely free to do well, or it could choose to do evil, and that God’s grace only facilitates what the “will” can choose to do on its own.3
The Early Church universally condemned Pelagius as a heretic at the Council of Orange. However, less than a century later his followers would resurface as “semi-Pelagians.” They had modified Pelagius’ doctrines somewhat. The semi-Pelagians now taught that man was indeed “morally sick” but still denied that he was “spiritually dead” in sin. They insisted that man still had a free will that could and would cooperate with God to be saved. God’s grace only enabled man to make this free choice, but did not ultimately save them. Ultimately, man saves himself by his choice. The semi-Pelagians were also condemned as heretics in 529 A.D.4 It should be noted that the Council of Orange did affirm that man does make free choices which is consistent with historical Calvinism (see my article on infralapsarianism). The difference is, the Council of Orange affirmed the fall of man, that he was dead in trespasses and sin and will not choose righteousness - and cannot make itself spiritually alive. This was opposed by the semi-Pelagians who denied man’s spiritual death as a result of sin. And who was the first Pelagian preacher to deny that sin would bring spiritual death? "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:” (Genesis 3:4).
Charles Finney devised “new methods for a new theology” – but his theology was not new at all! It was revived Pelagianism in Presbyterian garb! Like Pelagius, Finney denied original sin. He taught that we are only guilty and become corrupt when we choose to sin.5 He denied the atonement of Christ; he taught that Christ’s death did not pay for anyone’s sins. It was only a “moral example” that should serve to persuade man to repent.6 Finney denied substitionary atonement – that Christ died in the place of sinners and obeyed the Law perfectly in their stead and on their behalf. Jesus’ obedience to the Law is imputed (credited) to the believer. Finney denied this. He stated: “If he had obeyed the law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non of our salvation?”7 Finney rejected the view that the atonement was a literal payment of the sin debt by Christ on our behalf.8 He concluded: “It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one.”9
Not only did Finney deny the substitionary atonement of Christ and salvation through it, he denied the doctrine of imputed righteousness. He taught that man must be actually righteous to be saved. Man by his free will can choose to be completely sinless and go to Heaven. According to Finney, “full present obedience is a condition of justification.”10 Writing of the doctrine of Christ’s imputed righteousness, Finney states: “This error has slain more souls, I fear, than all the universalism that ever cursed the world.”11
Christian author Michael Horton summarizes Finney’s theology as not being a message of salvation through Christ, but as pure works-based righteousness without Christ. Christ becomes ultimately irrelevant in Finney’s theology. Finney saw Him only as a moral example for us to follow, not as a powerful Savior:
It should be noted that these positions are far more radically antithetical to Reformation theology (with which evangelicalism supposedly identifies itself) than the condemnations of the Reformer’s views by Rome at the Council of Trent. Finney’s message was certainly moralistic. Through various methods, the evangelist could induce repentance, through constant crisis experiences that generated self-transformation. It was indeed a therapeutic orientation. And, as his critics observed, it was a system of religion that did not even seem to require God. Salvation and moral improvement were entirely in the hands of the evangelist and the convert. The deistic implications are also apparent. Even if the gospel is formally affirmed, it becomes a tool for engineering personal and public life (salvation by works) rather than an announcement of God’s just wrath toward us has been satisfied and unmerited favor has been freely bestowed in Jesus Christ. God’s direct, personal, miraculous intervention for our salvation seems unnecessary, as suggested in the title of one of Finney’s most famous sermons, “Sinners Bound to Change Their Own Hearts.”12
Finney’s theology was not just contrary to the Reformers, it was contrary to the First Great Awakening. It was contrary to that of Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield – even contrary to the Arminian John Wesley. It was a denial of Jesus Christ as Savior. Benjamin Warfield, professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, observed that “God might be eliminated from it [Finney’s theology] entirely without essentially changing its character.”13
The Bible makes very clear that as a result of the Fall in the Garden, man is condemned and dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1-10). We must be born again by the Spirit of God (John 3:3-8) which is only by the power of God, not by the power of man (John 1:12-13; John 3:8; Romans 9:16). Jesus Christ lived the perfect, sinless life that we could not and died upon the cross to pay the penalty for our sins; by His death and shed blood, He paid for all of our sins in full. His blood totally washes them away (Hebrews 10:9-14; Romans 6:23; 1 Peter 1:18-19; Matthew 20:28; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Colossians 1:20-21; Galatians 3:13; Romans 3:24-26).
We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ – not by works! “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Salvation is a free gift – it is not earned! “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23). If Finney’s theology is correct then salvation is not a gift – it is a reward that must be earned!
Finney was wrong! Yes, man is commanded to obey God and keep His commandments, but that is not the basis for salvation! Salvation is only by the Savior, Jesus Christ. It is by the obedience of that one man, Christ Jesus, that we are saved:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of oneshall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 5:12-21).
Adam was the federal head and representative of the human race. We either stood or fell with him. His righteousness would become our righteousness – or his sin would become our sin. Adam sinned. Therefore, every single person he represented in the Garden had his sin imputed to them. That is because he was our ambassador and representative before God. Every single person he represented would be viewed through the prism of either his righteousness (if he remained obedient) or his sin (if he fell).
Adam sinned. Therefore, the judgment of his sin spread upon every single member of the human race. By one man’s act of disobedience, many were legally declared sinners. Our own personal sins only flow from that condemnation and sin nature inherited from him. But the one sin of the one man Adam was imputed to every member of the human race. We all stand condemned because we are declared guilty of the sin in the Garden – Adam was our champion and he sinned.
How many sins did we have to commit in order to have Adam’s sin imputed to us? How many acts of disobedience did we have to do to have him declared our sin representative? None – it was by the disobedience of one that we are made sinners.
Christ is the Second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). Believers, from the foundation of the world, were taken out from under the representation of Adam and placed into a new federal head and representative – the sinless Lamb of God, Jesus Christ!
Election is the key! Because Finney rejected election, he gets the Gospel wrong! Election is how the believer is united to Christ from before the world began. It is the key to the atonement; it unlocks the mysteries of the crucifixion and explains how the believer is justified by Christ’s blood. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: (Ephesians 1:3-4).”
We were chosen in Christ from before the foundation of the world! We were legally united to Christ! He became our federal head! Election resulted in our being united to Him for all heavenly blessings! Hallelujah!
Legal union happened before the foundation of the world. Personal union is different - it is a relationship that begins upon faith. Think of it as a betrothal as practiced in ancient times. Election was a promise (a betrothal) that legally bound us to Christ (as was an ancient betrothal). Then the relational union happens at the marriage (faith).
Adam was the federal head of the entire human race (Romans 5:11-19). He legally represented us. His righteousness would become our righteousness; and his sin would become our sin. This may seem unfair at first, but we practice federal headship all the time in our society! I am a father. I am the federal (legal) head of my child. Imagine if I took my child to an antique store and she reached out and broke one of the antiques. Because I am the federal head, the responsibility to pay for the broken item falls to me. Even though my daughter broke the item, I am liable for her actions because I am her federal head. The store holds me responsible to pay for it.
In the same way, Christ became the federal head of all of the believer. We were the ones who sinned! Yet because Christ is our federal head, the liability (punishment) for the sins of the believer fell to Him. Christ went up to the Cosmic Cash Register and paid the price with His own blood.
According to Romans 5, it was by the obedience of one man that the elect are saved. Every single person in Christ (the believer) is declared righteousness because of the righteousness of Christ imputed to them. His righteousness legally becomes our righteousness. We are declared legally sinless before God because the One representing us, our legal head, is sinless. We are saved by the obedience of one man – Jesus Christ the Lord! No ifs, ands or buts about it!
If Finney’s doctrine is true, then Romans 5 is a lie. We are not saved by the obedience of one man. If our own obedience and perfect de facto sinlessness is required, then salvation is by the obedience of two men – Jesus Christ and ourselves. But then we would need a soul winner to preach to us to convict us to live holy lives – so it’s by the obedience of three! Then that preacher would have needed a soulwinner – four! On and on we can go.
Finney’s doctrine is a negation of the Gospel. It is not just its negation, it is its antithesis. Salvation is by grace – only through the work of Jesus Christ (His life, death and resurrection). It is not just its antithesis – it is against the Gospel of Christ. It is of the spirit of the Antichrist! It is an anti-Gospel!
Finney believed that each time a Christian sinned, he lost his salvation and ceased to be a Christian. In order to regain his salvation, he must be purged of each sin by personal actions and personal sacrifices. This mirrors the Roman Catholic dogma of losing one’s salvation through a mortal sin. Michael Bunker writes: “So we see that Finney’s theology was not Protestant at all, but was wholly Catholic. The reason that Charles Finney loved the ‘altar call’ is because Charles Finney loved the ALTAR – The place where personal sacrifice is offered.”14
Finney’s theology blends well with American ideals - the idea of pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. This is a noble idea when it comes to working, raising families and getting ahead in life. However, it is heresy when it is applied to salvation! Man is not able to pull himself up by his own bootstraps. Man is dead in trespasses and sin and needs the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit to raise him up to spiritual life. He needs to be born again. We cannot save ourselves. We need Jesus Christ to be our Savior!
Was Finney’s doctrine abandoned by American Christians? On the contrary! Finney’s doctrine (in subtle ways) permeates American Christianity! Billy Graham considered Finney one of the greatest evangelists in American history! Christian author Michael Horton, in his book Christless Christianity, makes a fascinating observation of present-day American Christianity: “… American Protestantism has been more Pelagian than Arminian.15 Throughout the rest of his book, Horton sets forth the evidence that the Protestant churches in America, for the most part, have abandoned the gospel of salvation for the “gospel” of self-help; the gospel of “Your Best Life Now”. It is not a message of justification of Jesus Christ alone. It is not even a message of justification. It is “moralistic, therapeutic deism.” It is Finneyism. Or more accurately, it is Pelagianism.
The Second Great Awakening
The Second Great Awakening (1790-1840) was a religious revival that swept the United States. The Second Awakening actually began in Kentucky and Tennessee among the Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists. It eventually reached Ohio and Canada. Much of the United States remained a frontier; the Methodists tapped into it by sending “circuit riders” (traveling clergy) to preach to them.
Postmillennialism was the dominant eschatology held by American Protestants at the time. Postmillennialism teaches that the Church must usher in the prophesied “millennial reign” of Christ predicted in Revelation 20. Millennial theology has three distinct branches. Premillennialism teaches that Christ returns before the millennium and establishes it Himself. Amillennialism teaches that the millennium is symbolic of the Church Age with Christ already reigning over it. Postmillennialism teaches that the Church itself establishes the millennium for a thousand years and then Christ returns afterwards. To usher in the millennium, postmillennialists believed that it was their duty to prepare society for it through social reforms.
Charles Finney was a postmillennialist. He taught that Christians could speed up the arrival of the millennium by ridding the world of social and moral evils. Frances FitzGerald wrote, “In his preaching the emphasis was always on the ability of men to choose their own salvation, to work for the general welfare, and to build a new society.”16 But apart from the sovereignty of God, man’s attempts to build a “better world” will always fail! “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” (Psalm 127:1).
Was the Second Great Awakening truly an awakening to Biblical theology and the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the first one was? According to Stephen Nichols: “Most of the preaching in this period, which we refer to as the Second Great Awakening, contrasted with the preaching that was part of the First Great Awakening. The First Great Awakening was very Calvinistic. It stressed God’s work in the salvation of men and women. But this second Great Awakening trended Arminian; it stressed cooperating with God. It stressed the work that men and women do in bringing about their own salvation.”17
The Second Great Awakening reached the Burned-Over District in the 1820’s. It was the revivals of this time that earned it its moniker from Charles Finney. The spread of Arminianism helped gain massive converts to the Methodists and Arminian Baptists. Man will always be attracted to religious systems that allow him to save himself by his own works. Man hates any system of doctrine (like Christianity) where he cannot be his own savior. Thus those churches swelled in numbers to rival the Anglicans, Presbyterians and Congregationalists.
Because Finney believed man could choose to be perfect, he believed that if the right “pressures” or “persuasions” were imposed on man, he could be “guided” to revival. As such, Finney believed in revival on demand. He wrote on how to duplicate revivals anywhere. In his Lectures on Revivals of Religion, he laid out a step-by-step guide to successfully ignite revivals anywhere at any time.18
Women were heavily involved in the revivals of the Second Great Awakening. They saw themselves as having new voices that were not afforded them in traditional Christian churches.19 Women spoke up at religious services, gave their conversion testimony and declared supernatural events that they had experienced.20 Many women saw the Second Great Awakening as a stepping stone for gender equality. For example, Sarah and Angelina Grimké noted based on their firsthand observations that women were speaking and testifying better than the men.21 Yet, women were still limited. The gains they gained in equality during the Second Great Awakening certainly had its limits.
Women being allowed to publicly speak at revivals caused controversy, but it was not the only cause of consternation. The Second Great Awakening was causing large numbers of defections of members from traditional churches.22 Other criticisms were that the religious services lacked decorum and promoted irreverent worship.As a result of these controversies, in 1827 a conference of clergymen was held in New Lebanon, New York to address these concerns and better regulate revivals. Finney, his supporters and even his critics were in attendance. While numerous resolutions were passed, there ended up being little true enforcement.23
Nevertheless, the Second Great Awakening left its mark on American religion. What was the result? Michael Horton reveals the sour fruit that grew from Finney’s withered vines:
As Whitney R. Cross has carefully documented, the stretch of territory in which Finney’s revivals were most frequent was also the cradle of the perfectionist cults that plagued that century. A gospel that “works” for zealous perfectionists one moment merely creates tomorrow’s disillusioned and spent supersaints. Needless to say, Finney’s message is radically different from the evangelical faith, as is the basic orientation of the movements we see round us today that bear his imprint such as: revivalism (or its modern label, the Church Growth Movement), or Pentecostal perfectionism and emotionalism, or political triumphalism based on the idea of “Christian America,” or the anti-intellectual, and antidoctrinal tendencies of many American evangelicals and fundamentalists.24
Not only did Finney drastically impact American evangelicalism from a religious standpoint – his Arminian-Pelagian doctrine of self-perfection (or self-improvement) impacted modern political reforms i.e. liberalism:
That is because Finney’s moralistic impulse envisioned a church that was in large measure an agency of personal and social reform rather than the institution in which the means of grace, Word and Sacrament, are made available to believers who then take the Gospel to the world. In the nineteenth century, the evangelical movement became increasingly identified with political causes-from abolition of slavery and child labor legislation to women’s rights and the prohibition of alcohol. In a desperate effort at regaining this institutional power and the glory of "Christian America" (a vision that is always powerful in the imagination, but, after the disintegration of Puritan New England, elusive), the turn-of-the century Protestant establishment launched moral campaigns to "Americanize" immigrants, enforce moral instruction and "character education." Evangelists pitched their American gospel in terms of its practical usefulness to the individual and the nation.25
According to Horton, it was Finney’s theistic moralism that was the foundation for later Christian and social crusades.26 It fits in perfectly with his Pelagianism which had its root in his denial of the sovereignty of God. If God is not in control, then man is the one who must, by necessity, not only save himself but save society. Therefore, moralistic crusades go hand-in-hand with works righteousness religions. And what has been the fruit of American evangelicalism’s moral crusades? Has it worked? Abortion is fought for, promoted and defended. Fornication, adultery and divorce is out of control. Finney’s social crusades could not work because they were of men and not of God (Acts 5:38-39).
In the next article in the series, we will take a look at Joseph Smith and the “Black Specter” that haunted him in the woods of New York … and which terrorized the girls of Salem …
Michael Bunker, Swarms of Locusts: The Jesuit Attack on the Faith, p. 27, Writers Club Press, 2002.
Michael Horton, Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church, p. 44, Baker Books, 2012.
Michael Bunker, Swarms of Locusts: The Jesuit Attack on the Faith, p. 28, Writers Club Press, 2002.
Op. cit. at p. 30
Michael Horton, Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church, p. 44, Baker Books, 2012.
Op. cit.
Op. cit. at pp. 44-45.
Op. cit. at p. 45.
Op. cit, quoting Charles G. Finney, Finney’s Systematic Theology (repr., Minneapolis: Bethany, 1994, pages 206, 209.
Op. cit. at p. 45.
Op. cit.
Op. cit. at p. 66.
B.B. Warfield, Perfectionism (2 vols:; New York: Oxford, 1931)2. 193.
Michael Bunker, Swarms of Locusts: The Jesuit Attack on the Faith, p. 79, Writers Club Press, 2002.
Michael Horton, Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church, p. 44, Baker Books, 2012.
Frances FitzGerald, The Evangelicals: The Struggle to Shape America, p. 37, Simon and Schuster, 2017.
Steve Nichols, “Burned-Over District,” https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/5-minutes-in-church-history-with-stephen-nichols/burned-over-district
Spencer W. McBride & Jennifer Hull Dorsey, New York’s Burned-Over District: A Documentary History, p. 99, Cornell University, 2023.
Op. cit. at p. 100.
Op. cit.
Op. cit.
Op. cit.
Op. cit. at p. 101.
Michael Horton, “The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney,” https://www.monergism.com/disturbing-legacy-charles-finney
Op. cit.
Op. cit.