What do you think?
Rate this book
Memoirs of Rev. Charles G. Finney
Charles G. Finney never decided, in his own mind, that it was desirable to publish his memoir. Many of his friends, becoming aware of its existence, urged its publication; and his children, yielding to the general demand, and presented the manuscript to Oberlin College for publication.
Few men have better earned the right to utter their own thoughts, in their own words, and these thoughts and words are what the many friends of Mr. Finney desire. The only changes that seemed allowable, were occasional omissions, to avoid unnecessary repetition, or too minute detail, or, at times, references that might seem too distinctly personal. The narrative is, in its very nature, personal, involving the experiences both of the author and of those with whom he had to do; and to these personal experiences it, in great part, owes its interest and its value. As the narrative presents the memories and heart-yearnings of a veteran pastor, with a passion for winning souls, it is hoped and believed that, in its personal references, it will not be regarded as having transcended the limits of Christian propriety. For the most part, the lapse of time sets aside all question.
Excerpt from Memoirs of Rev. Charles G. Finney
The author of the following narrative sufficiently explains its origin and purpose, in the introductory pages. He left the manuscript at the disposal of his family, having never decided, in his own mind, that it was desirable to publish it. Many of his friends, becoming aware of its existence, have urged its publication; and his children, yielding to the general demand, have presented the manuscript to Oberlin College for this purpose.
In giving it to the public, it is manifestly necessary to present it essentially as we find it. No liberties can be taken with it, to modify views or statements which may sometimes seem extreme or partial, or even to subdue a style, which, though rugged at times, is always dramatic and forcible. Few men have better earned the right to utter their own thoughts, in their own words. These thoughts and words are what the many friends of Mr. Finney will desire. The only changes that seemed allowable, were occasional omissions, to avoid unnecessary repetition, or too minute detail, or, at times, references that might seem too distinctly personal.
Few men have better earned the right to utter their own thoughts, in their own words, and these thoughts and words are what the many friends of Mr. Finney desire. The only changes that seemed allowable, were occasional omissions, to avoid unnecessary repetition, or too minute detail, or, at times, references that might seem too distinctly personal. The narrative is, in its very nature, personal, involving the experiences both of the author and of those with whom he had to do; and to these personal experiences it, in great part, owes its interest and its value. As the narrative presents the memories and heart-yearnings of a veteran pastor, with a passion for winning souls, it is hoped and believed that, in its personal references, it will not be regarded as having transcended the limits of Christian propriety. For the most part, the lapse of time sets aside all question.
Excerpt from Memoirs of Rev. Charles G. Finney
The author of the following narrative sufficiently explains its origin and purpose, in the introductory pages. He left the manuscript at the disposal of his family, having never decided, in his own mind, that it was desirable to publish it. Many of his friends, becoming aware of its existence, have urged its publication; and his children, yielding to the general demand, have presented the manuscript to Oberlin College for this purpose.
In giving it to the public, it is manifestly necessary to present it essentially as we find it. No liberties can be taken with it, to modify views or statements which may sometimes seem extreme or partial, or even to subdue a style, which, though rugged at times, is always dramatic and forcible. Few men have better earned the right to utter their own thoughts, in their own words. These thoughts and words are what the many friends of Mr. Finney will desire. The only changes that seemed allowable, were occasional omissions, to avoid unnecessary repetition, or too minute detail, or, at times, references that might seem too distinctly personal.
496 pages, Paperback
Published May 20, 2009
About the author
Charles Grandison Finney
468 books71 followersCharles Grandison Finney was a leader in the Second Great Awakening. He has been called The Father of Modern Revivalism. Finney was best known as an innovative revivalist, an opponent of Old School Presbyterian theology, an advocate of Christian perfectionism, a pioneer in social reforms in favor of women and blacks, a religious writer, and president at Oberlin College.
He is not to be mistaken for his great-grandson, Charles G. Finney (1905-1984).
He is not to be mistaken for his great-grandson, Charles G. Finney (1905-1984).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
August 5, 2026
I have never seriously given much attention to Charles Finney, because I have heard statements like, "He was a heretic," or, "He is what's wrong with evangelicalism today." It was to my surprise and fascination when I read a positive article about him entitled "Charles Finney: America's Greatest Revivalist" written by Robert Coleman (available online in PDF). Upon reading this article I purchased and read these Memoirs. I've since learned that many people I greatly respect and read after had a high opinion of him. D. L. Moody referred to him as “one of the greatest ministers since Saint Paul.”
Billy Graham had many positive things to say about him, calling him a “deeply committed Christian” who had a “profound impact” and a “Spirit-filled evangelistic ministry.” Warren Wiersbe referred to him as a “great evangelist” who was “a man very close to God.” Adrian Rogers said “Charles Finney was a preacher greatly anointed of God.” Jim Cymbala said that Charles Finney is one of the people who he wants to meet in heaven and thank for "ignit[ing] his faith" and helping him receive "countless breakthroughs" in prayer.
Reading both his autobiography and his Revival Lectures have made me realize that there are several myths and misconceptions surrounding Charles Finney. While some of the criticisms of him are justified, they often fail to explain the full picture. Here are some of them.
1. "Charles Finney invented the modern-day altar call." While Finney's "anxious bench" popularized and influenced the modern day altar call, the credit must first go to the Methodists for their use of the "mourner's bench." However, I was surprised to learn how differently it was used back then to how it is used today. It is common today, after an invitation is given to respond to the gospel message, to walk down the aisle (or, "hit the sawdust trail"), kneel, pray the sinner's prayer, and profess to be born again. This can happen in a matter of a few minutes. I've realized this format was more popularized by Billy Sunday and Billy Graham than Finney, however. Finney did not use the altar this way, and many times he did not use it at all. In fact, in most of his revivals, especially the early ones, he would use no other means but prayer, preaching, and personal conversations to win people to Christ. Sometimes inquiry meetings were used as well. There was nothing easy or flippant about it. People seeking to be converted in Finney's meetings would be broken, often weeping, kneeling, and falling prostrate on the floor without being prompted to do so. He would not have pronounced someone as converted unless repentance was clearly genuine and a change had taken place. The altar call has been misused and abused. It has often produced premature or false professions of conversions and heavily emotional appeals have been given simply to get people there. However, there is nothing wrong with calling people to direct and immediate repentance upon the preaching of the gospel. That goes back to the days of John the Baptist and the apostles. I've given altar calls on several occasions. But interestingly enough, I'm more hesitant to use them after reading Finney's autobiography. When the Holy Spirit is really dealing with a person, an altar call is often unnecessary, and may even do more harm than good in giving false hope.
2. "Charles Finney was a Pelagian." This claim is highly disputed. According to Finney biographer, Lewis Drummond, the charge made by B. B. Warfield that Finney was a Pelagian is unjustified, and that while Finney did not like to think of himself as an Arminian, he essentially was. Wesleyan theologian Chris Bounds refers to Finney as a "soft semi-pelagian." However, Finney believed the work of the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential in a person's life for them to be converted, even though he laid great stress on the human will in calling people to conversion.
3. "Finney did not believe in total depravity." Finney said he believed in total depravity, but it was not the Calvinistic kind. He believed that mankind was universally corrupt and sinful, but that each person becomes corrupted by their own actions instead of an inherited or inherent nature. He would have fiercely rejected the belief that mankind is basically good. He believed in universal human depravity, just not inherited depravity. In his day, it was common for people to make the excuse that they were unconverted because they couldn't help it. Their sinful nature wouldn't allow them to repent. While Finney found such teaching caused sinners to become cold and lethargic, he found his preaching roused and awakened them.
4. "Charles Finney used emotional and manipulative methods to convert people." There is no doubt Finney's background as a lawyer had a tremendous impact on his theology and practices. He heavily relied on logic and reason to persuade people, showing them the errors of their ways and the truthfulness of the gospel. However, he refused to rely on sensational tactics to do so. He preached in a conversational tone, not screaming or yelling. He did not use music at all when giving an invitation. This is quite different from high pressure evangelistic tactics seen in more modern times. Finney's focus was not on the emotions, but the will.
5. "Finney believed revivals were a work of man rather than a work of God." While his statement that "a revival is not a miracle" is controversial, many fail to realize that he believed revival was something nonetheless supernatural. He was pushing back and reacting to the prevailing belief of the day that there is basically nothing we can do to promote or prepare for a revival. He wanted people to realize that there are some definite ways we can expect revival and that the reason we fail to see them sometimes is a failure on our part, not God's. If we do our part, God will do His part in sending a revival. He likened it to farming. A farmer plows the field, sows the seed, tends it, and waters it, but only God can send the sunshine, rain, and ultimately cause the plants to grow. It's the same way with revival. I completely agree. In his chapter on "Revival at De Kalb," he confesses his great dependency on the work of the Spirit: "In regard to my own experience, I will say that unless I had the Spirit of prayer I could do nothing. If even for a day or an hour I lost the Spirit of grace and supplication, I found myself unable to preach with power and efficiency, or to win souls by personal conversation. In this respect my experience at that time was what it has always been since--I found myself having more or less power in preaching and in personal labor for souls just in proportion as I had the Spirit of prevailing prayer. I have found that unless I kept myself--or have been kept--in such relations to God as to have daily and hourly access to Him in prayer, my efforts to win souls were abortive; but that when I could prevail with God in prayer, I could prevail with man in preaching, exhortation, and conversation."
It helps to understand that Finney was a pragmatist and a reactionary. He had good reason for taking exception to many of the prevailing beliefs of the day, even though he at times went too far. In my opinion, we can learn greatly from his life, principles, and practices without agreeing with all of his theology. He was a godly man, influenced many people, was used to bring about hundreds of thousands of conversions, and spoke out on social issues that were ahead of his time. This book was incredible, deeply moving, and had a profound impact on me.
Billy Graham had many positive things to say about him, calling him a “deeply committed Christian” who had a “profound impact” and a “Spirit-filled evangelistic ministry.” Warren Wiersbe referred to him as a “great evangelist” who was “a man very close to God.” Adrian Rogers said “Charles Finney was a preacher greatly anointed of God.” Jim Cymbala said that Charles Finney is one of the people who he wants to meet in heaven and thank for "ignit[ing] his faith" and helping him receive "countless breakthroughs" in prayer.
Reading both his autobiography and his Revival Lectures have made me realize that there are several myths and misconceptions surrounding Charles Finney. While some of the criticisms of him are justified, they often fail to explain the full picture. Here are some of them.
1. "Charles Finney invented the modern-day altar call." While Finney's "anxious bench" popularized and influenced the modern day altar call, the credit must first go to the Methodists for their use of the "mourner's bench." However, I was surprised to learn how differently it was used back then to how it is used today. It is common today, after an invitation is given to respond to the gospel message, to walk down the aisle (or, "hit the sawdust trail"), kneel, pray the sinner's prayer, and profess to be born again. This can happen in a matter of a few minutes. I've realized this format was more popularized by Billy Sunday and Billy Graham than Finney, however. Finney did not use the altar this way, and many times he did not use it at all. In fact, in most of his revivals, especially the early ones, he would use no other means but prayer, preaching, and personal conversations to win people to Christ. Sometimes inquiry meetings were used as well. There was nothing easy or flippant about it. People seeking to be converted in Finney's meetings would be broken, often weeping, kneeling, and falling prostrate on the floor without being prompted to do so. He would not have pronounced someone as converted unless repentance was clearly genuine and a change had taken place. The altar call has been misused and abused. It has often produced premature or false professions of conversions and heavily emotional appeals have been given simply to get people there. However, there is nothing wrong with calling people to direct and immediate repentance upon the preaching of the gospel. That goes back to the days of John the Baptist and the apostles. I've given altar calls on several occasions. But interestingly enough, I'm more hesitant to use them after reading Finney's autobiography. When the Holy Spirit is really dealing with a person, an altar call is often unnecessary, and may even do more harm than good in giving false hope.
2. "Charles Finney was a Pelagian." This claim is highly disputed. According to Finney biographer, Lewis Drummond, the charge made by B. B. Warfield that Finney was a Pelagian is unjustified, and that while Finney did not like to think of himself as an Arminian, he essentially was. Wesleyan theologian Chris Bounds refers to Finney as a "soft semi-pelagian." However, Finney believed the work of the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential in a person's life for them to be converted, even though he laid great stress on the human will in calling people to conversion.
3. "Finney did not believe in total depravity." Finney said he believed in total depravity, but it was not the Calvinistic kind. He believed that mankind was universally corrupt and sinful, but that each person becomes corrupted by their own actions instead of an inherited or inherent nature. He would have fiercely rejected the belief that mankind is basically good. He believed in universal human depravity, just not inherited depravity. In his day, it was common for people to make the excuse that they were unconverted because they couldn't help it. Their sinful nature wouldn't allow them to repent. While Finney found such teaching caused sinners to become cold and lethargic, he found his preaching roused and awakened them.
4. "Charles Finney used emotional and manipulative methods to convert people." There is no doubt Finney's background as a lawyer had a tremendous impact on his theology and practices. He heavily relied on logic and reason to persuade people, showing them the errors of their ways and the truthfulness of the gospel. However, he refused to rely on sensational tactics to do so. He preached in a conversational tone, not screaming or yelling. He did not use music at all when giving an invitation. This is quite different from high pressure evangelistic tactics seen in more modern times. Finney's focus was not on the emotions, but the will.
5. "Finney believed revivals were a work of man rather than a work of God." While his statement that "a revival is not a miracle" is controversial, many fail to realize that he believed revival was something nonetheless supernatural. He was pushing back and reacting to the prevailing belief of the day that there is basically nothing we can do to promote or prepare for a revival. He wanted people to realize that there are some definite ways we can expect revival and that the reason we fail to see them sometimes is a failure on our part, not God's. If we do our part, God will do His part in sending a revival. He likened it to farming. A farmer plows the field, sows the seed, tends it, and waters it, but only God can send the sunshine, rain, and ultimately cause the plants to grow. It's the same way with revival. I completely agree. In his chapter on "Revival at De Kalb," he confesses his great dependency on the work of the Spirit: "In regard to my own experience, I will say that unless I had the Spirit of prayer I could do nothing. If even for a day or an hour I lost the Spirit of grace and supplication, I found myself unable to preach with power and efficiency, or to win souls by personal conversation. In this respect my experience at that time was what it has always been since--I found myself having more or less power in preaching and in personal labor for souls just in proportion as I had the Spirit of prevailing prayer. I have found that unless I kept myself--or have been kept--in such relations to God as to have daily and hourly access to Him in prayer, my efforts to win souls were abortive; but that when I could prevail with God in prayer, I could prevail with man in preaching, exhortation, and conversation."
It helps to understand that Finney was a pragmatist and a reactionary. He had good reason for taking exception to many of the prevailing beliefs of the day, even though he at times went too far. In my opinion, we can learn greatly from his life, principles, and practices without agreeing with all of his theology. He was a godly man, influenced many people, was used to bring about hundreds of thousands of conversions, and spoke out on social issues that were ahead of his time. This book was incredible, deeply moving, and had a profound impact on me.
July 6, 2026
Of all Christians in the past 500 years (and possibly for all time) there is no one else that comes to mind as being a more contentious character than Charles Grandison Finney. There are seemingly few (if really any) who take a middle ground on his life & work.
On one side people will attribute "all that the church is doing wrong today" being a result of his life & legacy. On the other side he was a servant of God who saw great fruit that did abide. The critics would lambast him with the creation (the lasting legacy, really) of the altar call, emotion-driven evangelism, the "anxious seat", and piss poor theology. Those who support him would be quick to counter almost all those claims, with the exception of his systematic theology.
Before reading this book, and hearing critics/supporters over the years, I asked a simple question, "What did Charles Finney say about himself?" I typed in memoirs on YouTube and saw a free audio book, which was the primary way of me digesting this volume until the latter end of the book (afterwards I read the remaining chapters from a pdf hosted freely on the internet).
Finney is regarded today as a political metric within Christianity; if you are for him, you are against either Calvinism or Christian Universalism. Those two were his primary opponents. Those weren't his only enemies, slavery proponents and Freemasons being less spoken of but nevertheless opposition still.
After reading the second chapter of his memoirs, where he recounts his conversion story; I came across a video of a man who said that Charles Finney wasn't even saved. Astonishing was such a ridiculous statement. In fact, even speaking to people about Finney you normally receive a run-of-the-mill rehash of statements made by others. The irony being, his memoirs reek of such persons, of groups of men who, lacking substance in their claims, follow another's lead in slandering Finney. So much so that the very press itself was controlled by those who had an interest to suppress Finney's defense of his ministry.
The Calvinists of those days said, "You cannot save yourself unless God saves you." The fruit of this doctrine was & remains so foul that there are cases of those who have withheld turning to Christ, in light of this "sound" advice. To see what I mean, read the story of Catherine on pages 245-249 (Revival at Philadelphia). To those who say, "this [Deterministic] statement is still true" I would caution them to understand the power that Christ gives to His sheep pertaining to the handling of the Gospel and what power we have in Him for the conversion of souls if we abide (See John 15, Philippians 4:13). The Calvinist may say at this point, "Ah yes, that is true; but God must draw them." We are in agreement, so proclaim the Gospel of Christ and God will draw them (the parable of the sower obviously posits that the seed may not be received, but the seed is still cast). For the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation.
The (Calvinistic) thought ("You cannot save yourself unless God saves you.") has the tendency to make one useless in the Lord. Do not be as one ashamed at His return, Matthew 25:15-30 has a parable about a man who was a servant of God, who buried his talent in the ground; having done nothing with it. Be wary that you do not use the "sound" advice of doctrine of men to shipwreck your walk in the Lord. The conclusion of Christ's parable is clear, "...cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’"
Finney helped and assisted the work of Oberlin College, which was monumental for the underground railroad as well as education for females. Charles Finney says in his memoirs he did not make the issue so much as a hobby, so that his ministry of revival might not be weakened. This seems appalling, but in reality he had his mind with Christ first and foremost. To the shame of my own state, Ohio was predominantly at this time pro slavery; this I learned through Finney's memoirs.
One with a slight knowledge of history in regard to Oberlin would be quick to point out how far from God's Grace this university has fallen. They are correct. Seeing the university be stripped of theology over the years, and even embrace an ecumenical, universalistic outlook in today's age would see itself contrary to Finney's life, work & legacy.
The most value I got from this work were the individual stories of people being led to the Lord. Though I won't quantify this paragraph with exhaustive details, the stories that Finney presents here are, in my opinion, the greatest value of this work. Even if you do not take up reading this work, reading the story of Catherine and understanding it, is remarkable.
I did not see as much emotional evangelism as expected, in truth I saw none to my recollection. I have his book Revivals of Religion which may have this rotten apple if it shows its head there, though I'm sure if this criticism is anywhere to be validated, it would be found within his systematic theology.
But that is the most interesting of complaints. Charles G. Finney was a man who was a lawyer, who got saved, and immediately went to the mission field. The expectation of a systematic theology from a man with such a ministry as being perfect and without error is truly missing the forest for the trees.
He was Presbyterian, expecting him to get all things right pertaining to theology would be like dismissing Martin Luther's core ideas because of his views on communion and images within the church building. I don't dismiss Finney for his views on baptism, which are wrong. I don't dismiss Finney on his postmillennial outlook, from the true emotional outpouring at his revivals he was convinced the Lord was to return shortly. Charles Finney stood in an age where souls were being neglected because of an assumption that God would work on them if they were chosen. Sadly enough, this landscape & the neglect therein remains to this day.
On one side people will attribute "all that the church is doing wrong today" being a result of his life & legacy. On the other side he was a servant of God who saw great fruit that did abide. The critics would lambast him with the creation (the lasting legacy, really) of the altar call, emotion-driven evangelism, the "anxious seat", and piss poor theology. Those who support him would be quick to counter almost all those claims, with the exception of his systematic theology.
Before reading this book, and hearing critics/supporters over the years, I asked a simple question, "What did Charles Finney say about himself?" I typed in memoirs on YouTube and saw a free audio book, which was the primary way of me digesting this volume until the latter end of the book (afterwards I read the remaining chapters from a pdf hosted freely on the internet).
Finney is regarded today as a political metric within Christianity; if you are for him, you are against either Calvinism or Christian Universalism. Those two were his primary opponents. Those weren't his only enemies, slavery proponents and Freemasons being less spoken of but nevertheless opposition still.
After reading the second chapter of his memoirs, where he recounts his conversion story; I came across a video of a man who said that Charles Finney wasn't even saved. Astonishing was such a ridiculous statement. In fact, even speaking to people about Finney you normally receive a run-of-the-mill rehash of statements made by others. The irony being, his memoirs reek of such persons, of groups of men who, lacking substance in their claims, follow another's lead in slandering Finney. So much so that the very press itself was controlled by those who had an interest to suppress Finney's defense of his ministry.
The Calvinists of those days said, "You cannot save yourself unless God saves you." The fruit of this doctrine was & remains so foul that there are cases of those who have withheld turning to Christ, in light of this "sound" advice. To see what I mean, read the story of Catherine on pages 245-249 (Revival at Philadelphia). To those who say, "this [Deterministic] statement is still true" I would caution them to understand the power that Christ gives to His sheep pertaining to the handling of the Gospel and what power we have in Him for the conversion of souls if we abide (See John 15, Philippians 4:13). The Calvinist may say at this point, "Ah yes, that is true; but God must draw them." We are in agreement, so proclaim the Gospel of Christ and God will draw them (the parable of the sower obviously posits that the seed may not be received, but the seed is still cast). For the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation.
The (Calvinistic) thought ("You cannot save yourself unless God saves you.") has the tendency to make one useless in the Lord. Do not be as one ashamed at His return, Matthew 25:15-30 has a parable about a man who was a servant of God, who buried his talent in the ground; having done nothing with it. Be wary that you do not use the "sound" advice of doctrine of men to shipwreck your walk in the Lord. The conclusion of Christ's parable is clear, "...cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’"
Finney helped and assisted the work of Oberlin College, which was monumental for the underground railroad as well as education for females. Charles Finney says in his memoirs he did not make the issue so much as a hobby, so that his ministry of revival might not be weakened. This seems appalling, but in reality he had his mind with Christ first and foremost. To the shame of my own state, Ohio was predominantly at this time pro slavery; this I learned through Finney's memoirs.
One with a slight knowledge of history in regard to Oberlin would be quick to point out how far from God's Grace this university has fallen. They are correct. Seeing the university be stripped of theology over the years, and even embrace an ecumenical, universalistic outlook in today's age would see itself contrary to Finney's life, work & legacy.
The most value I got from this work were the individual stories of people being led to the Lord. Though I won't quantify this paragraph with exhaustive details, the stories that Finney presents here are, in my opinion, the greatest value of this work. Even if you do not take up reading this work, reading the story of Catherine and understanding it, is remarkable.
I did not see as much emotional evangelism as expected, in truth I saw none to my recollection. I have his book Revivals of Religion which may have this rotten apple if it shows its head there, though I'm sure if this criticism is anywhere to be validated, it would be found within his systematic theology.
But that is the most interesting of complaints. Charles G. Finney was a man who was a lawyer, who got saved, and immediately went to the mission field. The expectation of a systematic theology from a man with such a ministry as being perfect and without error is truly missing the forest for the trees.
He was Presbyterian, expecting him to get all things right pertaining to theology would be like dismissing Martin Luther's core ideas because of his views on communion and images within the church building. I don't dismiss Finney for his views on baptism, which are wrong. I don't dismiss Finney on his postmillennial outlook, from the true emotional outpouring at his revivals he was convinced the Lord was to return shortly. Charles Finney stood in an age where souls were being neglected because of an assumption that God would work on them if they were chosen. Sadly enough, this landscape & the neglect therein remains to this day.
December 29, 2021
Finney's Revivals Explained and Described
Those who wonder about those who promoted and opposed Finney and his preaching will find Finney's answers here. Much new information beyond the first edition and names given that the first smaller edition omitted.
Those who wonder about those who promoted and opposed Finney and his preaching will find Finney's answers here. Much new information beyond the first edition and names given that the first smaller edition omitted.
May 30, 2013
This book was excellent; from start to finish filled with lessons. I was a quite surprised by how well Finney teaches many Christian principles using the stories of his own life and experiences. In fact he weaved them in so well that I may have altogether not realized he was doing this had I not some experience in writing.
Finney clarifies at the beginning of this book, that it is not intended to be his life story, but his memoirs of ministry. He powerfully expands on his amazing successes in revival work, and clarifies the reasons for his success. He does not delve too deeply into theological doctrines, but does clarify his beliefs as they were different from many of the ministers of his day in a way which is easy, even today to understand. I only found myself unfamiliar with (peripheral) points he made once or twice, and that was only because I'm not fully versed in certain events or common beliefs of the day (Finney's ministry began in the early 1800's). This is an excellent resource for aspiring ministers.
Finney clarifies at the beginning of this book, that it is not intended to be his life story, but his memoirs of ministry. He powerfully expands on his amazing successes in revival work, and clarifies the reasons for his success. He does not delve too deeply into theological doctrines, but does clarify his beliefs as they were different from many of the ministers of his day in a way which is easy, even today to understand. I only found myself unfamiliar with (peripheral) points he made once or twice, and that was only because I'm not fully versed in certain events or common beliefs of the day (Finney's ministry began in the early 1800's). This is an excellent resource for aspiring ministers.
August 23, 2012
يُذكَر انه عظات تشارلس فيني كان المؤمنون يختبئون تحت كراسي الكنيسة بسبب خوفهم. لقد كان كلامه يُرهِب ويوبّخ بآيات الدينونة. كان يدعو للتوبة والإصلاح، في بداية الكنائس المُصلحة. كان دوره كبير وقتذاك.
June 10, 2016
Sorry Rev. Finney...just couldn't like it.
July 6, 2022
Love the vivid examples of: Moment of salvation, surrender, second work of the Holy Spirit, latter deeper surrender giving him more peace, dedication to the Lord.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews