Charles Grandison Finney on the Lord's Supper
A memorial and sign; no presence in the elements
The breaking of this bread and the pouring out of this wine may well represent the breaking of Christ's body and the shedding of his blood, and these emblems so far considered, doubtless set forth the atoning death of Christ as a sacrifice for our sins.
THE POSITION
The bread and wine are emblems that represent Christ's broken body and shed blood. The rite's design is to show forth his death and to illustrate "the life of faith sustained by its appropriate spiritual food." The sermon never speaks of Christ as present in the elements. At the table the risen Savior "sees you eating of his symbolized body" and his heart "beats in sympathy with yours", which is sympathy from heaven and not presence in the bread. It never takes up the presence question either, so the state is a lean. The feeding the rite illustrates is real to him, and that is what keeps this from being a bare remembrance.
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Each one must examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
3 OTHERS HOLD THIS
ABOUT THIS FIGURE
Law student turned revivalist of the Second Great Awakening, licensed and ordained by a Presbyterian presbytery in 1824, later professor of theology and president at Oberlin College. His Lectures on Revivals of Religion argued that a revival is the right use of means and not a miracle. His Systematic Theology built a doctrine of salvation on moral government and on the sinner's natural ability, and denied original sin as a sinful nature, imputed righteousness, and that the atonement paid what sinners owed. This entry rests on that Systematic Theology (1878 edition), the Revival Lectures, one chapter of the Memoirs, three Oberlin Evangelist pieces and one letter.
Cite this page
"Charles Grandison Finney on the Lord's Supper", Examined Doctrine, July 2026 edition, https://examineddoctrine.com/position/finney/lords-supper (archived at https://examineddoctrine.com/editions/2026-07/position/finney/lords-supper).