What do you think?
Rate this book
Lectures on Revival
"Because it pleased Christ to grant me experience with revivals of true Christianity, I thought that through the publication of these lectures I might in a small way serve the church at large." Charles G. Finney (from the preface) Throughout the winter of 1834, Charles Finney delivered one lecture a week on the principles of revival that he had seen transforming America's churches. These were recorded and later published as the Lectures on Revivals of Religion . Tens of thousands of copies where sold and spiritual awakenings occurred all over America and in Great Britain as a result. A revival classic was born. Covering the full range of topics related to revival, Lectures on Revival is the complete work, but is newly edited for today's reader. The classic work on revival
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1838
152 people are currently reading
357 people want to read
About the author
Charles Grandison Finney
448 books69 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 - 14 of 14 reviews
February 2, 2021
This classic on revival is full of wisdom and strident appeals for believers to live sold out to Jesus. Finney was a lawyer by profession who then became one of America’s foremost evangelists. His writing style reflects the zealous nature of his famed 19th century revival meetings.
There are 22 chapters (originally lectures) focusing on the key components that a church must address in order to experience and maintain a revival movement. The candor and flare employed in these pages is refreshingly prescient for our modern times when firmness of convictions is being challenged.
Most readers will discover certain aspects of the book to be dated as pertains to cultural realities. However, the core message of holy lives loving a broken world for the glory of Christ is compelling and thoroughly biblical. You will have to ponder as you read but the rewards are well worth the efforts expended.
There are 22 chapters (originally lectures) focusing on the key components that a church must address in order to experience and maintain a revival movement. The candor and flare employed in these pages is refreshingly prescient for our modern times when firmness of convictions is being challenged.
Most readers will discover certain aspects of the book to be dated as pertains to cultural realities. However, the core message of holy lives loving a broken world for the glory of Christ is compelling and thoroughly biblical. You will have to ponder as you read but the rewards are well worth the efforts expended.
January 17, 2023
Boring read
Read
May 12, 2021In the mid-1990s I was heavily influenced by excerpts of this book on the topic of prayer edited by L. G. Parkhurst Jr. titled, "Principles of Prayer." As well as by Basil Miller's biography of Finney. At the time I was impressed by how Finney's works, especially this book, impacted many other Christians I admired. For example the influential and inspiring Christian musician and singer Keith Green (et al.). Green's music is still among my favorite to listen to. Later as I embraced Calvinistic theology I came to learn of the serious errors in Finney's theology and practice. But curiosity is an itch that's hard to ignore. So, I decided to read "Lectures on Revivals of Religion."
For a brief overview of Finney's errors see:
A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: How Charles Finney's Theology Ravaged the Evangelical Movement by Phillip R. Johnson
The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney by Michael Horton
Some of my fellow Calvinists might ask me, "If Finney's theology is so bad, why are you reading him at all?" My answer would be that I think the Second Great Awakening was truly brought about by God's exercise of His Sovereign Grace [as was the case in the First Great Awakening], and that God used Charles Finney despite his aberrant and heretical theology. I believe that some of what he preached and practiced was right. Even the stalwart defender of Calvinism A.W. Pink said about revivals:
// "While it is true that all genuine revivals come from God, yet He is not capricious in the sending of them. We are sure that God never relinquishes His sovereign rights to own and to bless where and as He pleases. But we also believe that here, as everywhere, there is a direct connection between cause and effect. And a revival is the effect of a previous cause. A revival, like a genuine conversion, is wrought of God by means of the Word—the Word applied by the Holy Spirit, of course. Therefore, there is something more needed (on our part) than prayer:
the Word of God must have a place, a prominent place, the prominent place. Without that there will be no Revival, whatever excitement and activities of the emotions there may be." //
- A.W. Pink, Eternal Punishment, Introduction [bold added by me for emphasis]
Although genuine conversions, awakenings and revivals are the Sovereign work of God, from our perspective we can do things that can be instrumental in bringing them about because God ordains the whole causal nexus of cause and effect. God not only ordains the ends, but He also ordains the means to those ends; which include the types of things Jonathan Edwards did during the First, and Charles G. Finney did in the Second, Great Awakenings.
This is book by Finney is hard to rate because there's so much good and bad inside. And even the good is only good when read outside [sic] of his overall theology and philosophy. The positives and negatives almost cancel each other out. That's partly because Finney's theology isn't fully consistent. It verges on self-contradictory.
In the book, at times he sounds like a Semi-Pelagian [which is outside the realm of historic Christian orthodoxy], at other times he seems to affirm the necessity of enabling and initiating Prevenient Grace [which is within the realm of orthodoxy]. At times he sounds like someone who regards the human will as the hinge upon which, and THE key to conversion and later sanctification in the Christian life. At other times he affirms that any spiritual progress must be through faith and the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. At times he seems to be a master at using psychology and an understanding of human nature to manipulate people's emotions and wills to bring about "conversion" [real or merely apparent]. At other times he seems to acknowledge the necessity of relying on the Holy Spirit to do the convicting and enlightening of non-Christians rather than human manipulation. At times he goes on and on in an overly moralistic and pietistic approach to living the Christian life, but then he eventually makes shorter statements which seem to mitigate such errors. There were other extremes that I disagreed with. For example, his strong stance against the use of alcohol, tea and tobacco. Virtually implying all use of such substances is definitely sin. Contrary to the fact that Jesus Himself turned water into wine. If a moderate use of alcohol which does not lead to a loss of self-control is Biblically permissible, then why not also the use of tea and tobacco?
Based on Finney's other works which more fully and precisely articulate his distinctive views other Evangelical authors have rightly charged Finney with the heresies of Perfectionism; of Pelagianism in his denial of the doctrine of original sin and the consequent natural slavery of the human will to sin sans (apart from) grace; of holding to the either 1. the Moral influence theory and/or the 2. moral government theory of the atonement; of explicitly denying the substitutionary atonement of Christ; and of virtual deism. As well as rightly charging him with denying specifically historic Evangelical doctrines like Sola Fide [justification through/by faith alone based and grounded on the imputed all sufficiently meritorious righteousness of Christ alone].
Presumably, this book is better than his systematic theology where his errors are explicitly expressed and defended. Here, he makes some statements that have enough truth to them to be informative and challenging to serious Christians. Though, not balanced in a truly Gospel centered, Christocentric, Pneumacentric and Biblically grounded way. So that I cannot in good conscience recommend the book to those new to the topics of theology, evangelism, sanctification or living the Christian life.
I read the online version here: https://www.gospeltruth.net/1868Lect_on_Rev_of_Rel/home68revlec.htm
Reading this book detached from his other more expressly heretical books and reading it in the most charitable light, I'm tempted to give the book 3 1/2 stars; but reading it in the least charitable light 2 stars. Despite benefitting from reading the book, I've decided not to rate it because any rating would give a false impression. That it's either better or worse than it actually is.
Though I haven't read it again in a long time, I think I might still recommend L. G. Parkhurst Jr. edited excerpts "Principles of Prayer."
For a brief overview of Finney's errors see:
A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: How Charles Finney's Theology Ravaged the Evangelical Movement by Phillip R. Johnson
The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney by Michael Horton
Some of my fellow Calvinists might ask me, "If Finney's theology is so bad, why are you reading him at all?" My answer would be that I think the Second Great Awakening was truly brought about by God's exercise of His Sovereign Grace [as was the case in the First Great Awakening], and that God used Charles Finney despite his aberrant and heretical theology. I believe that some of what he preached and practiced was right. Even the stalwart defender of Calvinism A.W. Pink said about revivals:
// "While it is true that all genuine revivals come from God, yet He is not capricious in the sending of them. We are sure that God never relinquishes His sovereign rights to own and to bless where and as He pleases. But we also believe that here, as everywhere, there is a direct connection between cause and effect. And a revival is the effect of a previous cause. A revival, like a genuine conversion, is wrought of God by means of the Word—the Word applied by the Holy Spirit, of course. Therefore, there is something more needed (on our part) than prayer:
the Word of God must have a place, a prominent place, the prominent place. Without that there will be no Revival, whatever excitement and activities of the emotions there may be." //
- A.W. Pink, Eternal Punishment, Introduction [bold added by me for emphasis]
Although genuine conversions, awakenings and revivals are the Sovereign work of God, from our perspective we can do things that can be instrumental in bringing them about because God ordains the whole causal nexus of cause and effect. God not only ordains the ends, but He also ordains the means to those ends; which include the types of things Jonathan Edwards did during the First, and Charles G. Finney did in the Second, Great Awakenings.
This is book by Finney is hard to rate because there's so much good and bad inside. And even the good is only good when read outside [sic] of his overall theology and philosophy. The positives and negatives almost cancel each other out. That's partly because Finney's theology isn't fully consistent. It verges on self-contradictory.
In the book, at times he sounds like a Semi-Pelagian [which is outside the realm of historic Christian orthodoxy], at other times he seems to affirm the necessity of enabling and initiating Prevenient Grace [which is within the realm of orthodoxy]. At times he sounds like someone who regards the human will as the hinge upon which, and THE key to conversion and later sanctification in the Christian life. At other times he affirms that any spiritual progress must be through faith and the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. At times he seems to be a master at using psychology and an understanding of human nature to manipulate people's emotions and wills to bring about "conversion" [real or merely apparent]. At other times he seems to acknowledge the necessity of relying on the Holy Spirit to do the convicting and enlightening of non-Christians rather than human manipulation. At times he goes on and on in an overly moralistic and pietistic approach to living the Christian life, but then he eventually makes shorter statements which seem to mitigate such errors. There were other extremes that I disagreed with. For example, his strong stance against the use of alcohol, tea and tobacco. Virtually implying all use of such substances is definitely sin. Contrary to the fact that Jesus Himself turned water into wine. If a moderate use of alcohol which does not lead to a loss of self-control is Biblically permissible, then why not also the use of tea and tobacco?
Based on Finney's other works which more fully and precisely articulate his distinctive views other Evangelical authors have rightly charged Finney with the heresies of Perfectionism; of Pelagianism in his denial of the doctrine of original sin and the consequent natural slavery of the human will to sin sans (apart from) grace; of holding to the either 1. the Moral influence theory and/or the 2. moral government theory of the atonement; of explicitly denying the substitutionary atonement of Christ; and of virtual deism. As well as rightly charging him with denying specifically historic Evangelical doctrines like Sola Fide [justification through/by faith alone based and grounded on the imputed all sufficiently meritorious righteousness of Christ alone].
Presumably, this book is better than his systematic theology where his errors are explicitly expressed and defended. Here, he makes some statements that have enough truth to them to be informative and challenging to serious Christians. Though, not balanced in a truly Gospel centered, Christocentric, Pneumacentric and Biblically grounded way. So that I cannot in good conscience recommend the book to those new to the topics of theology, evangelism, sanctification or living the Christian life.
I read the online version here: https://www.gospeltruth.net/1868Lect_on_Rev_of_Rel/home68revlec.htm
Reading this book detached from his other more expressly heretical books and reading it in the most charitable light, I'm tempted to give the book 3 1/2 stars; but reading it in the least charitable light 2 stars. Despite benefitting from reading the book, I've decided not to rate it because any rating would give a false impression. That it's either better or worse than it actually is.
Though I haven't read it again in a long time, I think I might still recommend L. G. Parkhurst Jr. edited excerpts "Principles of Prayer."
February 28, 2023
This is a giant of a book! The message to the church and to ministers is vital, transformative and will awaken many. A few of my responses, impressions, and lasting legacy of the book as follows:
The state of our country (South Africa) is awful and so much of the goodness of God is missing. The glory of God is it stake – and only the church can be the influence to correct that – and only a revival can restore the glory of God in the world.
Revival is something we offer to God – we offer a revived commitment and effectiveness and cooperation in the local congregation.
Finney was a progressive of his day – he was a Presbyterians breaking away from old school Calvinists into progressive theology and humanitarian concern (including abolition of slavery and empowerment of women – which was very radical in early 1800s North America). It is vital that evangelicals today realise that their Conservative, prejudicial stance is contrary to the great leaders of the early Evangelical movement. Remember that John Wesley was a progressive in his day. The way in which evangelicals today stand against the inclusion and affirmation of same-sex orientation is for example a stumbling block towards revival. Finney makes it clear that taking a wrong stance on moral issues will prevent revival. There is no doubt that the time has come to be inclusive and affirming and that objecting to it is to quench the spirit.
These lectures need to be read within a contemporary understanding of matters like judgement of God. My conviction is that these lectures are of great value if one doesn’t get caught up with the harsh Calvinistic elements of theology in 1800s.
The state of our country (South Africa) is awful and so much of the goodness of God is missing. The glory of God is it stake – and only the church can be the influence to correct that – and only a revival can restore the glory of God in the world.
Revival is something we offer to God – we offer a revived commitment and effectiveness and cooperation in the local congregation.
Finney was a progressive of his day – he was a Presbyterians breaking away from old school Calvinists into progressive theology and humanitarian concern (including abolition of slavery and empowerment of women – which was very radical in early 1800s North America). It is vital that evangelicals today realise that their Conservative, prejudicial stance is contrary to the great leaders of the early Evangelical movement. Remember that John Wesley was a progressive in his day. The way in which evangelicals today stand against the inclusion and affirmation of same-sex orientation is for example a stumbling block towards revival. Finney makes it clear that taking a wrong stance on moral issues will prevent revival. There is no doubt that the time has come to be inclusive and affirming and that objecting to it is to quench the spirit.
These lectures need to be read within a contemporary understanding of matters like judgement of God. My conviction is that these lectures are of great value if one doesn’t get caught up with the harsh Calvinistic elements of theology in 1800s.
February 19, 2023
Yes, Finney is given to extremes and eccentricities. But so rare is such earnestness as Finney's, that his words carry a weight and power that explain his great influence in the early nineteenth century. I can forgive his absoluteness in certain idiosyncratic areas. If I may quote Finney himself, "I never knew a person who was filled with the Spirit that was not called eccentric" (p. 111).
February 26, 2019
This book, written by a revival legend like Finney, is full of treasures of wisdom, but remains a very repetitious and boring read. I imagine him preaching this with fire and zeal, but it is very hard to read it that way. As far as insight and takeaway, rich. As far as readability, poor.
July 28, 2024
If the church could operate in these principles, we would have revival in the US. This was a life changing book for me and my ministry. Essentially, we can have revival if we operate in the right principles, and Finney outlines them here.
Read
January 29, 2020For American Civ class. Interesting take on why society becomes religious again/falls out of religiosity.
Currently reading
January 13, 2009Finney is a an animal when it comes to describing why churches and the state of Christ is the way it is today. I really enjoy this book, it is a great read. Of course it makes me feel like a terrible person; but it is an extremely insightful view on life and Christianity.
February 24, 2011
Good book. I think D. Martyn Lloyd Jones' book "Revival" is better, but Finney's work is a classic that is great reading.
April 18, 2012
A classic and very influential book.
June 15, 2015
A very popular title where if you ignore his thoughts that certain steps guarantee revival the rest of the book is quite helpful.
August 7, 2016
Life changing....
Read
March 23, 2010This is classic and passionate on the topic
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews