Wednesday, September 11, 2019

Charles Finney vs. Reformed Appeals to John 3;16 to support Limited Atonement


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.