Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius (AD 354 – AD 420/440), although he denied, at least at some point in his life, many of the doctrines associated with his name. It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. This is still sometimes called Limited Depravity. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to original sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example) as well as providing an atonement for our sins. In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for obeying the Gospel in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because humans are sinners by choice, they are therefore criminals who need the atonement of Jesus Christ. Sinners are not victims, they are criminals who need pardon.

Pelagianism stands in contrast to two other prominent theological theories: Semipelagianism and Total Depravity.

History[link]

Nuremberg Chronicle (1493): Pelagius Hereticus and John Chrysostom.

Pelagius was opposed by Saint Augustine, one of the most influential early Church Fathers. When Pelagius taught that moral perfection was attainable in this life without the assistance of divine grace through human free will, Saint Augustine contradicted this by saying that perfection was impossible without grace because we are born sinners with a sinful heart and will. The Pelagians charged Augustine on the grounds that the doctrine of original sin amounted to Manichaeism: the Manichaeans taught that the flesh was in itself sinful (and they denied that Jesus came in the flesh) – and this charge would have carried added weight since contemporaries knew that Augustine himself had been a Manichaean layman before his conversion to Christianity. Augustine also taught that a person's salvation comes solely through an irresistible free gift, the efficacious grace of God, but that this was a gift that one had a free choice to accept or refuse.^[1]

Pelagianism was attacked in the Council of Diospolis (also known as Lydda; modern Lod)^[2] and condemned in 418 at the Council of Carthage.^[3] These condemnations were ratified at the Council of Ephesus in 431. The strict moral teachings of the Pelagians were influential in southern Italy and Sicily, where they were openly preached until the death of Julian of Eclanum in 455, and in Britain until the coming of Saint Germanus of Auxerre.^[4]

In De causa Dei contra Pelagium et de virtute causarum, Thomas Bradwardine denounced Pelagians in the 14th century and Gabriel Biel did the same in the 15th century.^[3]

Pelagius[link]

Little or nothing is known about the life of Pelagius. Although he is frequently referred to as a British monk, it is by no means certain what his origins were. Augustine says that he lived in Rome "for a very long time" and referred to him as "Brito" to distinguish him from a different man called Pelagius of Tarentum. Bede refers to him as "Pelagius Bretto".^[5] St. Jerome suggests he was of Scottish descent but in such terms as to leave it uncertain as to whether Pelagius was from Scotland or Ireland. He was certainly well known in the Roman province, both for the harsh asceticism of his public life, as well as the power and persuasiveness of his speech. Until his more radical ideas saw daylight, even such pillars of the Church as Augustine referred to him as “saintly.”

Pelagius taught that the human will, as created with its abilities by God, was sufficient to live a sinless life, although he believed that God's grace assisted every good work. Pelagius did not believe that all humanity was guilty in Adam's sin, but said that Adam had condemned humankind through bad example, and that Christ’s good example offered humanity a path to salvation, through sacrifice and through instruction of the will. Jerome emerged as one of the chief critics of Pelagianism, because, according to him, sin was a part of human nature and we couldn't help but to sin.

Comparison of teaching[link]

Church Fathers on free will[link]

Many of the Church Fathers taught that humans have the power of free will and the choice over good and evil. Justin Martyr said that 'every created being is so constituted as to be capable of vice and virtue. For he can do nothing praiseworthy, if he had not the power of turning either way'. 'Unless we suppose man has the power to choose the good and refuse the evil, no one can be accountable for any action whatever.' (The First Apology, 43). Tertullian also argued that no reward can be justly bestowed, no punishment can be justly inflicted, upon him who is good or bad by necessity, and not by his own choice. (Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, p. 61). Likewise Origen,^[6] and Clement of Alexandria^[7]

Justin Martyr said, “Let some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever occurs happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Now, if this is not so, but all things happen by fate, then neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it is predetermined that this man will be good, and this other man will be evil, neither is the first one meritorious nor the latter man to be blamed. And again, unless the human race has the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions.”^[8]

Justin Martyr said, “I have proven in what has been said that those who were foreknown to be unrighteous, whether men or angels, are not made wicked by God’s fault. Rather, each man is what he will appear to be through his own fault.”^[9]

Tatian said, “We were not created to die. Rather, we die by our own fault. Our free will has destroyed us. We who were free have become slaves. We have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God. We ourselves have manifested wickedness. But we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it.”^[10]

Melito said, “There is, therefore, nothing to hinder you from changing your evil manner to life, because you are a free man.”^[11]

Theophilus said, “If, on the other hand, he would turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he would himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power of himself.”^[12]

Irenaeus said, “But man, being endowed with reason, and in this respect similar to God, having been made free in his will, and with power over himself, is himself his own cause that sometimes he becomes wheat, and sometimes chaff.”^[12]

Irenaeus said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good deeds’…And ‘Why call me, Lord, Lord, and do not do the things that I say?’…All such passages demonstrate the independent will of man…For it is in man’s power to disobey God and to forfeit what is good.”^[13]

Clement of Alexandria said, “We…have believed and are saved by voluntary choice.”^[14]

Tertullian said, “I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of his own will and power…For a law would not be imposed upon one who did not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to law. Nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will…Man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance.^[15]

Pelagius's views[link]

Regarding this issue, Pelagius taught:

“Whenever I have to speak on the subject of moral instruction and conduct of a holy life, it is my practice first to demonstrate the power and quality of human nature and to show what it is capable of achieving, and then to go on to encourage the mind of my listener to consider the idea of different kinds of virtues, in case it may be of little or no profit to him to be summoned to pursue ends which he has perhaps assumed hitherto to be beyond his reach; for we can never end upon the path of virtue unless we have hope as our guide and compassion…any good of which human nature is capable has to be revealed, since what is shown to be practicable must be put into practice."^[16]

"It was because God wished to bestow on the rational creature the gift of doing good of his own free will and the capacity to exercise free choice, by implanting in man the possibility of choosing either alternative...he could do either quite naturally and then bend his will in the other direction too. He could not claim to possess the good of his own volition, unless he was the kind of creature that could also have possessed evil. Our most excellent creator wished us to be able to do either but actually to do only one, that is, good, which he also commanded, giving us the capacity to do evil only so that we might do His will by exercising our own. That being so, this very capacity to do evil is also good - good, I say, because it makes the good part better by making it voluntary and independent, not bound by necessity but free to decide for itself."^[17]

"Those who are unwilling to correct their own way of life appear to want to correct nature itself instead."^[18]

"And lest, on the other hand, it should be thought to be nature's fault that some have been unrighteous, I shall use the evidence of the scripture, which everywhere lay upon sinners the heavy weight of the charge of having used their own will and do not excuse them for having acted only under constraint of nature."^[19]

"Yet we do not defend the good of nature to such an extent that we claim that it cannot do evil, since we undoubtedly declare also that it is capable of good and evil; we merely try to protect it from an unjust charge, so that we may not seem to be forced to do evil through a fault of our nature, when, in fact, we do neither good nor evil without the exercise of our will and always have the freedom to do one of the two, being always able to do either."^[19]

"Nothing impossible has been commanded by the God of justice and majesty...Why do we indulge in pointless evasions, advancing the frailty of our own nature as an objection to the one who commands us? No one knows better the true measure of our strength than he who has given it to us nor does anyone understand better how much we are able to do than he who has given us this very capacity of ours to be able; nor has he who is just wished to command anything impossible or he who is good intended to condemn a man for doing what he could not avoid doing."^[20]

"Grace indeed freely discharges sins, but with the consent and choice of the believer."^[21]

"Obedience results from a decision of the mind, not the substance of the body."^[22]

An unknown Pelagian taught:

"Is it possible then for a man not to sin? Such a claim is indeed a hard one and a bitter pill for sinners to swallow; it pains the ears of all who desire to live unrighteous. Who will find it easy now to fulfil the demands of righteousness, when there are some who find it hard even to listen to them?"^[23]

"When will a man guilty of any crime or sin accept with a tranquil mind that his wickedness is a product of his own will, not of necessity, and allow what he now strives to attribute to nature to be ascribed to his own free choice? It affords endless comfort to transgressors of the divine law if they are able to believe that their failure to do something is due to inability rather than disinclination, since they understand from their natural wisdom that no one can be judged for failing to do the impossible and that what is justifiable on grounds of impossibility is either a small sin or none at all."^[24]

"Under the plea that it is impossible not to sin, they are given a false sense of security in sinning...Anyone who hears that it is not possible for him to be without sin will not even try to be what he judges to be impossible, and the man who does not try to be without sin must perforce sin all the time, and all the more boldly because he enjoys the false security of believing that it is impossible for him not to sin...But if he were to hear that he is able not to sin, then he would have exerted himself to fulfil what he now knows to be possible when he is striving to fulfil it, to achieve his purpose for the most part, even if not entirely."^[25]

"Consider first whether that which is such that a man cannot be without it ought to be described as sin at all; for everything which cannot be avoided is now put down to nature but it is impious to say that sin is inherent in nature, because in this way the author of nature is being judged at fault… how can it be proper to call sin by that name if, like other natural things, it cannot be avoided, since all sin is to be attributed to the free choice of the will, not to the defects of nature?"^[26]

Later reactions[link]

How to react to Pelagius has remained a question in Christian theology. Thomas Bradwardine (c. 1290-1349) wrote De causa Dei contra Pelagium et de virtute causarum ad suos Mertonenses.^[27] Johann Pupper, also known as Johannes von Goch (c. 1400-1475), an Augustinian, recommended a return to the text of the Bible as a remedy for Pelagianism.^[28]

Later writers, such as Martin Luther (1483-1546), John Calvin (1509-1564), and Cornelius Jansen (1585-1638) reacted in different ways against Pelagianism, and evaluations of Lutheran, Reformed, and Jansenist theologies have often turned on the question of what is or is not Pelagian.^[29]

Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)[link]

Unconventional Mormon theologian Sterling M. McMurrin has argued that “[t]he theology of Mormonism is completely Pelagian.”^[30] It is doubtful that many Latter-day Saints would think of themselves as "Pelagians," or express their beliefs in the traditional terms used in the theological debates surrounding Pelagianism.^{[citation needed]} However, McMurrin's statement is supported by Mormon theology to the extent that it teaches that the Atonement of Jesus Christ has overcome the effects of "original sin" for all mankind. For example, the Book of Mormon, a text sacred to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, teaches:

[T]he Messiah cometh in the fullness of time, that he might redeem the children of men from the fall. And because they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good and evil, to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at that great and last day, according to the commandments which God has given. ^[31]

Additionally, Latter-day Saints theology differs from Pelagianism in that it teaches that personal, individual perfection is only possible through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.^{[citation needed]}

See also[link]

• Meister Eckhart
• Erasmus
• Fall of Man
• Charles Grandison Finney
• Mormon cosmology
• Semipelagianism
• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Notes[link]

Further reading[link]

Writings by Pelagius

• Letters of Pelagius: To A Presbyter, Augustine of Hippo, and Pope Innocent I
• Confession of Faith
• On Nature
• Defense Of The Freedom Of The Will
• Expositions on Paul’s Epistle
• Epistle to Demetrias
• Excerpts Out Of Divine Scriptures: Book One (a.k.a. Chapters)
• Written Anathema

External links[link]

• The Writings of the legendary Pelagians
• Canons From The Council Of Carthage Against Pelagianism, May 1, 418
• Catholic Encyclopedia: Pelagius and Pelagianism
• Pelagians, Donatists, Monks, Anabaptists and other Perfectionists - a sympathetic look at Pelagianism and similar 'perfectionist' movements
• Pelagius Library: Online site dedicated to the study of Pelagius
• Pelagianism: The Religion of Natural Man - a critical look at Pelagianism

v t e Catholic Church Organizations, papacy, teachings and liturgical traditions History Jesus Twelve Apostles Early Christianity History of the Papacy Ecumenical Councils Missions Great Schism of East Crusades Great Schism of West Protestant Reformation Counter-Reformation Catholic Church by country Hierarchy Pope Cardinals Patriarchs Major Archbishops Primates Metropolitans Archbishops Diocesan Bishops Theology Body and Soul Divine Grace Dogma One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church Original sin Salvation Sermon on the Mount The Ten Commandments Trinity Worship Sacraments Anointing of the Sick Baptism Confirmation Eucharist Holy Orders Matrimony Penance Mariology Roman Catholic Mariology Assumption History of Mariology Immaculate Conception Mariology of the popes Mariology of the saints Mother of God Perpetual Virginity Veneration Doctors of the Church Albertus Magnus Ambrose Anselm of Canterbury Anthony of Padua Thomas Aquinas Athanasius of Alexandria Augustine of Hippo Basil of Caesarea Bede Robert Bellarmine Bernard of Clairvaux Bonaventure Petrus Canisius Catherine of Siena Peter Chrysologus John Chrysostom Cyril of Alexandria Cyril of Jerusalem Peter Damian Ephrem the Syrian Francis de Sales Gregory of Nazianzus Gregory the Great Hilary of Poitiers Isidore of Seville Jerome John of Damascus John of the Cross Lawrence of Brindisi Leo the Great Alphonsus Maria de Liguori Teresa of Ávila Thérèse of Lisieux Pope Benedict XVI Conclave Theology Works Dominus Iesus Sacramentum Caritatis Deus Caritas Est Summorum Pontificum Spe Salvi Caritas in Veritate Preceding popes Pope John Paul II Pope John Paul I Pope Paul VI Pope John XXIII Pope Pius XII Pope Pius XI Pope Benedict XV Pope Pius X Pope Leo XIII Pope Pius IX Religious institutes and similar Assumptionists Augustinians Benedictines Capuchin Order Carmelites Carthusians Congregations of Holy Cross Dominican Order Franciscan orders Jesuits Oratory of Saint Philip Neri Vatican II Definition of the Church Dei Verbum Gaudium et Spes Lumen Gentium Nostra Aetate Sacrosanctum Concilium Particular Churches and liturgical rites Alexandrian Coptic Ethiopic Antiochian Maronite Syriac Syro-Malankara Armenian Armenian Byzantine Albanian Belarusian Bulgarian Croatian Greek Hungarian Italo-Albanian Macedonian Melkite Romanian Russian Ruthenian Slovak Ukrainian East Syrian Chaldean Syro-Malabar Latin Roman Anglican Use Sarum Ambrosian Mozarabic Catholicism portal Pope portal

v t e History of Catholic theology Theologians · Teachings · Heresies General History History of the Catholic Church · Early Christianity · History of the Papacy · Ecumenical Councils · Timeline of the Catholic Church · History of Christianity · History of Christian theology Church beginnings First Epistle of Clement · Didache · Ignatius of Antioch · Epistle of Barnabas · Justin Martyr · Irenaeus · Tertullian · Origen · Antipope Novatian · Cyprian Constantine to Pope Gregory I Arianism · Pelagianism · Nestorianism · Monophysitism · Pope Leo I · Ambrose · Augustine of Hippo Early Middle Ages Monothelitism · Ecthesis · Iconoclasm · Transubstantiation dispute · Predestination disputes · John Scotus Eriugena High Middle Ages Thomas Aquinas · Thomism · Roscellinus · Anselm of Canterbury · Peter Abelard · Decretum Gratiani · Bernard of Clairvaux · Peter Lombard · Hildegard of Bingen · Dominic de Guzmán · Francis of Assisi · Bonaventure · Albertus Magnus Mysticism & Reforms Duns Scotus · Dante Alighieri · William of Ockham · Catherine of Siena · Brigit of Sweden · Meister Eckhart · Johannes Tauler · Heinrich Seuse · Nicholas of Kues · Thomas à Kempis Protestant Reformation and Counter-Reformation Thomas More · John Fisher · Thomas Cajetan · Johann Eck · Ignatius of Loyola · Francis Xavier · Teresa of Ávila · John of the Cross · Petrus Canisius · Robert Bellarmine · Francis de Sales Baroque Period to French Revolution Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet · Francisco Suárez · François Fénelon · Jansenism · Blaise Pascal · Alphonsus Maria de Liguori · Louis de Montfort · Alfonso Muzzarelli · Louis Thomassin · 19th century John Henry Newman · Gaetano Sanseverino · Giovanni Maria Cornoldi · Clemens Maria Hofbauer · Johann Michael Sailer · Joseph Görres · Wilhelm Emmanuel Freiherr von Ketteler · Giuseppe Pecci · Joseph Hergenröther · Tommaso Maria Zigliara · Thérèse of Lisieux 20th-21st century Raimondo Spiazzi · Gabriel Roschini · Pierre Teilhard de Chardin · Henri de Lubac · Jean Daniélou · Yves Congar · Dietrich von Hildebrand · Jacques Maritain · Karl Rahner · Bernard Lonergan · Edward Schillebeeckx · Hans Urs von Balthasar · Pope Benedict XVI · Gustavo Gutiérrez Pope Portal Catholicism Portal

Charles Finney
Charles Finney
Born	(1792-08-29)August 29, 1792 Warren, Connecticut
Died	August 16, 1875(1875-08-16) (aged 82) Oberlin, Ohio
Occupation	Presbyterian minister; evangelist; revivalist; author
Spouse	Lydia Root Andrews (m. 1824); Elizabeth Ford Atkinson (m. 1848); Rebecca Allen Rayl (m. 1865)

Charles Grandison Finney ((1792-08-29)August 29, 1792 – August 16, 1875(1875-08-16)) was a leader in the Second Great Awakening. He has been called The Father of Modern Revivalism.^[1] 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.

Life[link]

Born in Warren, Connecticut,^[2] Finney was the youngest of fifteen children. The son of farmers, Finney never attended college, but his six-foot three-inch stature, piercing eyes, musical skill and leadership abilities gained him recognition in his community.^[3] He studied as an apprentice to become a lawyer, but after a dramatic conversion experience and baptism into the Holy Spirit in Adams, New York, he gave up law to preach the gospel.^[4][5] At age 29 under George Washington Gale, Finney studied to become a licensed minister in the Presbyterian Church, though he had many misgivings about the fundamental doctrines taught in that denomination.^[6]

Finney was twice a widower and was married three times in his life. In 1824, he married Lydia Root Andrews (1804–1847). In 1848 he married Elizabeth Ford Atkinson (1799–1863). In 1865 he married Rebecca Allen Rayl (1824–1907). All three assisted Finney in his evangelistic efforts, accompanying him on his revival tours during their lives. Finney had six children, all by his first wife.

He moved to New York City in 1832 where he ministered the Chatham Street Chapel, and he later founded and preached at the Broadway Tabernacle.

Revivals[link]

Finney was most active as a revivalist 1825-35 and was known for his innovations in preaching and religious meetings. His innovations included having women pray in public meetings of mixed gender, development of the "anxious seat", a place where those considering becoming Christians could come to receive prayer, and public censure of individuals by name in sermons and prayers.^[7] He was also known for his use of extemporaneous preaching.

Antislavery[link]

In addition to becoming a popular Christian evangelist, Finney was involved with the abolitionist movement and frequently denounced slavery from the pulpit. In 1835, he moved to Ohio where he became a professor and later president of Oberlin College from 1851 to 1866. Oberlin became active early in the movement to end slavery and was among the first American colleges to co-educate blacks and women with white men.^[8]

As a young man Finney was a third-degree Master Mason, but after his conversion he dropped the group as antithetical to Christianity. He was active in Anti-Masonic movements.^[9]

Theology[link]

Finney was a primary influence on the "revival" style of theology which emerged in the 19th century. Though coming from a Calvinistic background, Finney rejected tenets of "Old Divinity" Calvinism which he felt were unbiblical and counter to evangelism and Christian mission.

Finney's theology is difficult to classify, as can be observed in his masterwork, Religious Revivals. In this work, he emphasizes the involvement of a person's will in salvation.^[10] Whether he believed the will was free to repent or not repent, or whether he viewed God as inclining the will irresistibly (as in Calvinist doctrine, where the will of an elect individual is changed by God so that they now desire to repent, thus repenting with their will and not against it, but not being free in whether they choose repentance since they must choose what their will is inclined towards), is not made clear. Finney, like most Protestants, affirmed salvation by grace through faith alone, not by works or by obedience.^[11][12] Finney also affirmed that works were the evidence of faith. The presence of unrepentant sin thus evidenced that a person had not received salvation.

In his Systematic Theology, Finney remarks that "I have felt greater hesitancy in forming and expressing my views upon this Perseverance of the saints, than upon almost any other question in theology."^[13] At the same time, he took the presence of unrepented sin in the life of a professing Christian as evidence that they must immediately repent or be lost. Finney draws support for this position from Peter's treatment of the baptized Simon (see Acts 8) and Paul's instruction of discipline to the Corinthian church (see 1 Corinthians 5). This type of teaching underscores the strong emphasis on personal holiness found in Finney's writings.

Finney's understanding of the atonement was that it satisfied "public justice" and that it opened up the way for God to pardon people of their sin. This was the so-called New Divinity which was popular at that time period. In this view, Christ's death satisfied public justice rather than retributive justice. As Finney put it, it was not a "commercial transaction." This view of the atonement is typically known as the governmental view or government view.

Princeton Theological Seminary Professor Albert Baldwin Dod reviewed Finney's 1835 book Lectures on Revivals of Religion^[14] and rejected it as theologically unsound.^[15] Dod was a defender of Old School Calvinist orthodoxy (see Princeton theologians) and was especially critical of Finney's view of the doctrine of total depravity.^[16]

References[link]

Bibliography[link]

• Essig, James David. "The Lord's Free Man: Charles G. Finney and his Abolitionism," Civil War History, March 1978, Vol. 24 Issue 1, pp 25–45
• Guelzo, Allen C. "An heir or a rebel? Charles Grandison Finney and the New England theology," Journal of the Early Republic, Spring 1997, Vol. 17 Issue 1, pp 60–94
• Hambrick-Stowe, Charles E. Charles G. Finney and the spirit of American Evangelicalism (1996), a major scholarly biography
• Hardman, Keith J. Charles Grandison Finney, 1792-1875: Revivalist and Reformer (1987), a major scholarly biography
• Johnson, James E. "Charles G. Finney and a Theology of Revivalism," Church History, September 1969, Vol. 38 Issue 3, pp 338–358 in JSTOR
• Perciaccante, Marianne. Calling Down Fire: Charles Grandison Finney and Revivalism in Jefferson County, New York, 1800-1840 (2005)

External links[link]

• The Theology of C. G. Finney explained and defended
• "The COMPLETE WORKS of CHARLES G. FINNEY" collected by Gospel Truth Ministries
• A biography of Charles Finney by G. Frederick Wright (Holiness perspective; supportive)
• A Vindication of the Methods and Results of Charles Finney's Ministry (Revivalist perspective; supportive; answers many traditional Old School Calvinist critiques)
• Charles Grandison Finney: New York Revivalism in the 1820-1830s by John H. Martin
• Articles on Finney (conservative Calvinist perspective; critical)
• How Charles Finney's Theology Ravaged the Evangelical Movement (conservative Calvinist perspective; critical)
• "The Legacy of Charles Finney" by Dr. Michael S. Horton (conservative perspective; critical)
• The Oberlin Heritage Center-Local history museum and historical society of Oberlin, OH, where Finney lived and worked for decades.
• Finney's Lectures on Theology by Charles Hodge (conservative Calvinist perspective; critical)
• The Church in Crisis A critical look at Finney's revivalist methods and their impact on the modern church in America
•  "Oberlin Theology". Encyclopedia Americana. 1920.