Answering
objections based on John 3:16 being used to support particular redemption/limited
atonement, Charles Finney wrote:
To the doctrine of general atonement it is
objected, that it would be folly in God to provide what he knew would be
rejected; and that to suffer Christ to die for those who, he foresaw, would not
repent, would be a useless expenditure of the blood and suffering of Christ.
(1.) This objection assumes that the
atonement was a literal payment of a debt [which] does not consist with the
nature of the atonement.
(2.) If sinners do not accept it, in no view
can the atonement be useless, as the great compassion of God, in providing an
atonement and offering them mercy, will for ever exalt his character, in the
estimation of holy beings, greatly strengthen his government, and therefore
benefit the whole universe.
(3.) If all men rejected the atonement, it
would, nevertheless, be of infinite value to the universe, as the most glorious
revelation of God that ever was made. (The
Governmental View of the Atonement: A Compilation of Various Christian Authors [comp.
Jesse Morrell; Biblical Truth Resources, 2012], 71-2)
Continuing,
Finney answers the following related objection, one that is commonly used, even
today, by proponents of Limited Atonement:
To the general atonement it is objected, that
it implies universal salvation.
It would indeed imply this, upon the
supposition that the atonement is the literal payment of a debt. It was upon
this view of the atonement, that universalism first took its stand.
Universalists taking it for granted, that Christ had paid the debt for those
for whom he died, and finding it fully revealed in the Bible that he died for
all mankind, naturally, and if this were correct, properly, inferred the
doctrine of universal salvation. But [this] is not the nature of atonement.
Therefore, this inference falls to the ground. (Ibid., 72)
Finney’s
arguments are important also as it highlights the importance of understanding
payment-like language vis-à-vis Old Testament sacrifices and the singular
sacrifice of Christ as metaphors and
not to be taken literally.
