The Fallacies of Moral Government Theology - Part IV

(modern Finneyism)
 

Charles G. Finney & The Atonement - Part B

by Leon Stump

We continue this issue with the fourth installment of our series on the theology of Charles G. Finney (1792-1875). Many hail him as America's greatest evangelist while others, further, call him the greatest theologian since apostolic times. If these claims were true, we would certainly be in deep trouble because, as we are in the process of demonstrating, Finney's views on some of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity- justification, the atonement, and the new birth-are extremely defective.

In our last issue we began taking up Finney's views on the atonement. The commonly held view of the atonement in the church from ancient times is that since death is the penalty for sin, Christ paid that penalty by dying for us, making it possible for God to forgive us and give us eternal life without violating His justice. But Finney denies that Christ's death was punishment, insisting that the way His death saves us is by showing us how seriously God views sin and how much He loves us, and that seeing this we are motivated to repent and live a holy life.

This view is not Finney's personal creation, but is a combination of what are known as the "moral influence" and "governmental" theories. The moral influence view was first given formal expression by Peter Abelard [1079-1142]. Later it was adopted by liberal theologians who wished to keep something of the gospel while ridding it of elements they found distasteful such as the judgment and wrath of God against sin. To them, God was all love and needed no propitiation or sacrifice to appease His wrath and make forgiveness possible. Finney adopts the same view of the atonement but for quite different reasons. For him it was useful for destroying the false security of those who were sure that because of the atonement, they could sin without fear of punishment. One of Finney's great passions, His modus operandi as an evangelist, was removing the refuge of sinners, the places in which they hid from Christ and the gospel.

Development of the moral influence view can be traced from Abelard to Faustus Socinus (1539-1604) who wrote in vigorous opposition to the penal views of the Reformers. Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), in response to Socinus, is credited as the first to formally set forth what is called the moral government view. From Abelard, Socinus, and Grotius, the moral influence view flowed into a huge stream which went on to dominate liberal Protestantism. The 19th century German "rationalist" theologians (so called because they subjected everything including Scripture to the rule of reason) with numerous minor variations enthusiastically adopted this view. Finney's view, as well, is essentially that of Abelard and Grotius.

Whatever may be said for the merits of the moral influence and moral government views, they are certainly inadequate to explain the atonement as set forth in the Scriptures. Jesus died, not to uphold "public justice" (teaching a moral lesson, deterring sin), but to satisfy God's justice that sin be punished with death. The atonement appeases God's wrath and saves the sinner from it. It is true that when we see that Christ loved us enough to die us as our Substitute, it moves us to repent of ours sins and love and obey God. But these are only some of the effects of the atone ment, not its fundamental meaning. In fact, as some have said, the atonement has these subjective effects on us precisely because it was a bearing of our sin and punishment in our' place so we could be saved.

Let us recap the points we made in rebuttal of Finney on the atonement in our last article:

First, he begins and ends with God as Governor, whose main concern is the good or His subjects. Certainly God is described as King in Scripture, but this is not His only role any more than benevolence is, in essence, His only attribute as Finney maintains. God is also a Judge who punishes sin-not just to teach the universe a lesson about morals and motivate them to obey-but simply because it deserves punishment. Concerning the atonement, the Bible does not depict God as a Governor but as a Judge set on punishing sin Who cannot acquit the sinner except on the grounds of Christ's bearing the punishment for sin in the sinner's stead. This is the whole line of argument in the book of Romans, for example, as we pointed out step by step in our last article.

Second, again, the moral influence/governmental view of Finney has the atonement terminating primarily on man in a subjective fashion, not on God in an objective fashion. But this is quite contrary to the whole testimony of the Scriptures on atonement. Sacrifice is consistently said to be made to God (Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 9:14). Sin offerings could only be offered by a priest on an altar in front of the door to the tabernaclel/temple where God's manifest presence dwelt. The blood on the altar made atonement for their souls. God said of the passover in Egypt: " ... [W]hen I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt" (Exodus 12:13,) The atonement terminates primarily on God and only secondarily on man.

Third, God does not punish sin primarily to teach a moral lesson but because He is Just. He hates sin for its own sinfulness and punishes people for it primarily because it is deserved. Therefore, the atonement of Christ was not primarily a moral lesson to move us to repent and obey but a satisfaction of Justice. Sin must be punished. If the punishment due us fell on us, we could not be saved. Instead, the punishment falls on Christ and we are forgiven and saved. "He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed" (Isaiah 53:4,NAS).

Fourth, Finney's distinction between "retributive" justice (punishment of sin) and "public" justice is just so much sophistry and semantics designed to make it appear he is retaining the truth of the atonement, that it was made to God's justice, while at the same time, in reality, denying it.

Fifth, if Christ's death was not punishment for our sin as Finney contends, it has no real connection with our forgiveness. And how could Christ's death be a deterrent for sin if it were not a punishment? If it was not a punishment for sin, how does it show us that God takes sin seriously? If it was not punishment for our breaking God's law, as Finney affirms, how could Paul say that we died with Christ to the law (Romans 7:6; Galatians 2:19,20)?

Sixth, Finney says the atonement was made to deter sin, to motivate us to repent and obey, and "to make it safe for God to forgive sin." But if this is all there was to it, the atonement was not really necessary in the strictest sense. God has other ways to deter sin and motivate us to repent; Christ's atonement is just the most compelling one. And notice that he does not say that the atonement made it possible for God to forgive sin but only safe to do so. Forgiveness, according to this theory, is possible without the atonement, because forgiveness is rooted in God's mercy alone.

All these we covered in our last installment. We continue now with these points in rebuttal of Finney on the atonement:

Seventh, Finney uses the old familiar term "substitution" for Christ's atonement, but he means something q:'1ite different from what is commonly meant by it. When we say Christ was our Substitute or made substitution for us, we mean that He took our place in death, that He died our death, the death that was due us for our sins. But since Finney doesn't believe this, he must subtly alter the meaning while still using the term. He says, " ... the Hebrew word Cofer [atonement]. ... a noun from the verb caufer, to cover ..... properly means substitution .... the Atonement is the substitution of the sufferings of Christ in the place of the sufferings of sinners." No; in the first place, it is the substitution of Christ for us, of His death for our deserved death, not the substitution of His sufferings for the sufferings of sinners. God did not demand the "sufferings" of the sinner for his sin so much as He demanded his death-"the soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4, KJV); "they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death" (Romans 1:32). Finney skewers the meaning of "substitution" to make it sound like Jesus' death was a substitute for substitution. Second, the Hebrew word for atonement (koper, from kapar) properly means "expiation." The English word "atonement" carries the idea of reconciliation ("at-one-ment") but this is more the effect of atonement, not the thing denoted by the Hebrew word itself. We often hear that the meaning of the root word kapar is "covering," but R.L. Harris writes in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament:

There is an equivalent Arabic root meaning "cover," or "conceal." On the strength of this connection it has been supposed that the Hebrew word means "to cover over sin" and thus pacify the deity, making an atonement .... There is, however, very little evidence for this view. The connection of the Arabic word is weak and the Hebrew root is not used to mean "cover." (Theological Wordbook of the OT, R.Laird Harris, Ed.; Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Assoc. Ed.; Bruce K. Waltke, Assoc.Ed.; Moody Press: Chicago; 1980; Vol.l. pp.452,453)

Determining the precise meaning of many Biblical Hebrew words is difficult, owing to the antiquity of the language and the lack of corroborative writings with which to compare the use of a word. Scholars must resort to the meaning of the root word, the original form of the word used; but often this is guesswork, and besides, a word's meaning depends more on its use than its etymology. Another avenue open to them is to compare the Hebrew word with corresponding words in other Semitic languages of the time (including Arabic), but this is often unsatisfactory for determining the meaning of a Hebrew word as used in the Bible. One of the best methods available for determining the meaning of a Hebrew word is to study and compare what Greek word (or words) was chosen to represent it by the translators of the Septuagint (also designated "LXX" for the supposed number of the Jewish translators who worked on it). The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament made from 250 to 150 B.C. Because there is a much larger body of written material available in the Greek language than Hebrew from ancient times, word meanings can be determined far more certainly.

For the Hebrew words derived from kapar, the Septuagint translators predominantly chose the Greek word exhilaskomai. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (TNIDNTT) says:

kipper in the Heb. OT is normally translated by exhilaskomai. The latter vb. does not occur at all in the NT which prefers hilaskomai. Nevertheless, exhilaskomai is important, as it occurs 105 times (83 of which to translate kipper). It is the normal vb. used when OT writers speak of making atonement. (TNIDNTT, Colin Brown, editor; Zondervan:Grand Rapids,MI; 1978, Vol.3, p.154) TNIDNTT has a lengthy discussion of whether these words

for atonement mean "propitiation" or "expiation." Webster's definitions of these two English terms run thus: expiate: Latin ... ex-, out + piare, to appease,
propitiate to make amends or reparation for (wrongdoing
or guilt); atone for; pay the penalty of.
propitiate: ... to cause to become favorably inclined; win or regain the good will of; appease or conciliate. (Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition; World Publishing Company: NY; 1966)

Whether one argues that "atonement" means "propitiate" or "expiate" matters very little at this point. Either one supports the penal satisfaction view of the atonement and destroys the view offered by Finney. "Atonement" certainly does not mean "substitution."

The Greek words in the Septuagint for the Hebrew words for atonement do not occur often in the New Testament; nevertheless their occurrence is important. For example, hilasmos, the noun form of hilaskomai, occurs in 1 John 2:1 and 4:10. "And he is the expiation for our sins" (2:1,Revised Standard Version). The King James Version, the American Standard Version, and the New American Standard Version all read "propitiation." And "He loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (4:10,RSV). Again, the K.JV, the ASV, and the NASV all have "propitiation." TN II )NTT says the Greek should be rendered either "propitiation" or ".'expiation."

The Hebrew word for "atonment," then, denotes "expiation" or "propitiation," either of which contradicts Finney's view of the atonement. This in itself is fatal to Finney's view. Correct definitions of terms is crucial to a proper understanding of anything. We are simply not authorized to offer our own private definitions of terms as Finney does.

Eighth, Finney insists that Christ's sufferings "were not those of a sinner." Strange statement, seeing that He was first flogged and then crucified on a cross between two thieves. Flogging was used as a punishment for crimes by both the Jews (Deuteronomy 25:2,3) and the Romans. Crucifixion was the most heinous of all executions, reserved for the lowest of criminals. Jesus Himself was not personally guilty of anything worthy of flogging and death, let alone by crucifixion, but those for whom He died were. That, it seems obvious, is the very reason why God delivered Him over to these particular forms of suffering and death. He suffered unjustly at the hands of men, but at the same time it was God who set him forth as the propitiation for us and for our sins. He did not suffer and die for His own sins but for ours. His was the sufferings and death of every sinner as their Substitute.

Ninth, Finney maintains that Christ did not bear the literal penalty of the law of God for our sins because that would mean He would have had to endure eternal death. This objection to the classic view of the atonement was raised by Socinus (1609) and others during the Reformation. Many Reformers, including Luther and Calvin, responded that Christ did indeed bear the wrath of God for our sins including the pains of hell. It's not that Christ actually descended into hell and suffered as our substitute, as those in the faith movement, following E. W. Kenyon, maintain, but they did insist that He suffered the pains of hell in His death on the cross as indicated by His "cry of dereliction": "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34).

I discussed the Kenyon view in the January and February, 1993, LifeLines in answer to questions I received on leaving the faith movement thirteen years ago. A case can possibly be made for Jesus dying spiritually and going to hell from Matthew 12:40 with Jonah 2 and Psalm 88; Acts 2:24,27-31; 13:32-34; Romans 10:6,7 with Luke 8:31 and Revelation 11:7 and 17:8; Ephesians 2:5,6; Colossians 2:13; and 1 Peter 3:18. Here are some quotes from the Reformers and other Calvinists on Jesus bearing the wrath of God as our Substitute:

Martin Luther: Because an eternal, unchangeable sentence of condemnation has been passed-for God cannot and will not regard sin with favor, but his wrath abides upon it eternally and irrevocably-redemption was not possible without a ransom of such precious worth as to atone for sin, to assume its guilt, pay the price of the wrath and thus abolish sin. This no creature was able to do. There was no remedy except for God's only Son to step into our distress and himself become man, to take upon himself the load of awful and eternal wrath and make his own body and blood a sacrifice for sin. And he did so, out of the immeasurable great mercy and love towards us, giving himself up and bearing the sentence of unending wrath and death. (Epistle Sermon, Twenty-fourth Sunday after Trinity, ed. ,J.N. Lenker (Minneapolis: The Luther Press, 1903-10), 60: 9.J3, quoted in The Atonement of the Death of Christ, H.D. McDonald; Baker Book House: Grand Rapids,MI; 1985, p.182)

In His innocent, tender heart He was obliged to taste for us eternal death and damnation, and, in short, to suffer everything that a condemned sinner has merited and must suffer forever. (quoted in The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation, James Denney, 1918)

John Calvin: [Christ's descent into hell]. .. that invisible and incomprehensible judgment which He underwent at the bar of God; that we might know that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of our redemption, but that there was another greater and more excellent price-namely, that He endured in His soul the dreadful torments of a condemned and lost man. (Ibid.)

John Owen: The punishment due our sin and the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; which that it was the pains of hell, in their nature and being, in their weight and pressure, though not in tendence and continuance (it being impossible that He should be detained by death), who can deny and not be injurious to the justice of God, which will inevitably inflict those pains to eternity upon sinners? (Ibid.)

Even if one were to subscribe to the view that Christ suffered in hell as our substitute (which I do not), he would have to deal with the fact that Christ did not suffer eternally in hell as the sinner must do. But whether one holds to the Reformers view, the Kenyon/Faith Movement view, or a lesser view of penal satisfaction, the objection that He did not suffer eternally could be met with the answer that since He was God as well as man, His suffering was eternal in the sense that it was infinite. This has been expressed in a number of ways by a number of theologians. Anselm (1033-1109), the first to give full expression to the satisfaction view of the atonement, said that the infinite merit or value of the offering as a sacrifice of Christ's sinless and divine Person more than outweighed the demerit of all sin. Jonathan Edwards "stressed the infinite worth of Christ's person as giving to his work infinite value and so [met] the infinite desert of sin." "'Christ indeed suffered the full punishment of sin that was imputed to him, or offered to God what was fully and completely equivalent to what was owed to the divine justice for our sins.'" (McDonald, op.cit., p.299)

H.D. McDonald writes:
God reckons the death of Christ to man as his adequate punishment for the sins of the world. God judged sin on Christ as Christ bore our sin in his body on the tree. Objectors to the penal substitutionary doctrine point out that Jesus did not die an eternal death, as the sinner deserves. If the term eternal is conceived quantitatively as everlasting, this is true. But it is another matter when the word is given a qualitative significance, as it should. For Christ bore the punishment of man's sin not just as a perfect man, but as human and divine, as God-man. What he did has the quality of eternity in it. There is thus the quality of an eternal death in the historic moment, and in the historic moment the quality of an eternal atonement. (McDonald, op.cit., pp.84,85)

Christ's divinity gave infinite value to His suffering.

So, the fact that He did not suffer as the lost would do, enduring the wrath of God eternally in hell, does not rule out the view that the atonement was a satisfaction of God's justice as required by the Law of God. That Christ indeed bore the penalty of the law of God is most expressly stated in Galatians 3: 13-"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.'" "Christ redeemed us" from what? "the curse of the law" how? "by becoming a curse for us" and not just a curse in some general sense of the "accursedness" of His death, but the curse pronounced in the Law "for it is written" in the Law, Deuteronomy 21:22,23 '''Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.'" The quote in Deuteronomy runs thus:

If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse.

Now, whatever "problems" the penal! satisfaction view of the atonement may be perceived to have, what are any of them or all of them put together compared to the plain declaration of Scripture? Galatians three is unmistakably clear. Paul says that Christ redeemed (freed or delivered us by payment of a price) from the curse pronounced in the law by being made a curse for us by hanging on the cross which was made from a tree. Paul reminds us in verse 10 before Galatians 3:13 that sin or breaking God's Law put us under a curse-""Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law [quoting Deuteronomy 27:26]." It will not do to seek to escape the sense of this by countering that only the "ceremonial" part of the law is meant in this passage, that Christ redeemed us from the ceremonial law (circumcision, sacrifices, feasts, etc.), because the texts says, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." We were all guilty of "capital offenses" and the curse of hanging on a tree was our punishment, but Christ interposed and hung on the cross for us and redeemed us from that curse so that now instead of being condemned to death, we are justified and set free. Now, like I said, whatever the problems anyone may have with this, this is exactly what the passage teaches, like it or not. A million "cannot be's" and "must not be's" and "must not have's" raised by reason cannot nullify one jot of Scripture. "Let God be true and every man a liar" applies as much to this as to anything else. This is the plain teaching of the Bible on the nature and meaning of the atonement. To continue to maintain as liberals and Finney do that Christ's sufferings were not that of a sinner, that His atonement was not a satisfaction of retributive justice, that his sufferings were not penal is absurd. People get into these kind of messes with the Bible because first of all, they dishonor the Scriptures by subordinating it to reason, and second, they know nothing about Bible interpretation.

So many foolishly object, "But it is impossible that Christ would be cursed of God." Very well, take it up with Paul; take it up with the Holy Ghost; but don't take it up with those who hold the "penal substitutionary view of the atonement." Don't deceive yourself into thinking that your argument is with them-your argument is with Scripture; your argument is with God.

In the Law God set down the penalties for breaking His Law. For twenty-one offences the penalty was the death of the offender. The mode of execution, depending upon the offense, ranged from burning to stoning to hanging on a tree. Punishment for lesser offenses included flogging:

When men have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty. If the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall make him lie down and have him flogged in his presence with the number of lashes his crime deserves, but he must not give him more than forty lashes. If he is flogged more than that, your brother will be degraded in your eyes. (Deuteronomy 25:1-3)


Flogging was usually done with whips, rods, or switches (Proverbs 10:13; 22:15; 23:13,14; 2 Corinthians 11:24,25), but there was, in addition, a terrible instrument used by the Jews called a "scorpion" (l Kings 12:11,14; 2 Chronicles 10:11,14; Judges 8:7,16; Proverbs 26:3). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (lSBE) says it consisted of "pointed and knotty rods or whips embedded with sharp iron points." Because of the Roman occupation, Jesus was crucified, not stoned; yet this was the means of execution of the lowest criminals, as we have said. But Jesus was also beaten to the point of death (the Romans had no forty stripe limit) which was, again, a horrible form of punishment for the worst of crimes. The instrument used was very similar to the "scorpion" used by Jews to carry out the judicial sentence of God against offenders of His Law. On top of this, Paul says Jesus' crucifixion was essentially equivalent to the punishment prescribed in Deuteronomy 21:22,23, "hanging on a tree." How can anyone deny that Jesus' sufferings were penal or the punishment for our breaking God's Law when His sufferings and death were exactly what was laid down in the Law as punishment for breaking God's commands? I just don't get it. The prophecy of Isaiah is in complete agreement with all this:

Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed .... By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53:45,8,10)

In the eighth verse the ASV and NASV read, "and as for His generation, who considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due?" (italics in original). In our last issue I said after demonstrating what Paul said in Romans about the atonement that Finney's view was dead in the water and that I should have been able to rest my case. The points I am making in this article are only a case of massive overkill; but for the record. here are a few more:

Tenth, Finney denies that Christ's sufferings and death we were punishment because "it is impossible to punish an innocent individual... Punishment implies guilt. An innocent being may suffer, but he cannot be punished." But what if, as the Scriptures maintain, Christ was made to be our sin or bare our sin, that is, bore the guilt of them? He was treated as if He were the guilty one although, of course, He was not personally guilty of any sin or crime. God expressly declares that, as with the sin offerings under the Law, a substitute may carry the blame and bear the punishment of an offender. This is the very nature of atonement. By confession of sin over it accompanied by the laying on of hands, the sins of Israel were symbolically transferred to the sacrificial animal. It was then killed and the offender(s) forgiven. Just so with the anti-type, Christ. Our sins were transferred to Him, not necessarily literally but in the sense that He took the blame, the guilt, the responsibility for them by dying in our place for them. Even if it is impossible to punish an innocent individual, by what universally recognized axiom is it true that one cannot bear the punishment of another? To say that this also is impossible is to flatly deny what God, over and over again by example in the Old Testament sacrifices and in Christ's atonement which they prefigure, says is exactly the case. He bore our punishment.

Eleventh, Finney seeks to demonstrate that Christ did not bear the punishment for our sins by the observation that unrepentant sinners will go to hell. He writes, "The punishment of sinners is just as much deserved by them as if Christ had not suffered at all." It is true that they will be thus punished, but it does not prove Christ was not punished for the world's sins, including theirs. They will go to hell for eternity because they failed to meet the conditions-repentance and faith-that God lays down upon which the atonement provided for them becomes personally theirs by experience. If God provides an atonement out of the goodness of His will and mercy, it stands to reason that He can also lay down the conditions upon which the benefits that accrue from that atonement become personally ours in actual realization. This was true of the Old Testament sacrifices as well. The prophets made it clear that without repentance, including amendment of life, the sacrifices alone would not atone for sin. Notwithstanding this, God plainly declares over and over again that it is the blood on the altar that makes an atonement for the soul. Christ's death makes atonement (expiation, propitiation) for the sins of the whole world, but the forgiveness and reconciliation thus provided is received only on condition of repentance and faith. Paul writes of this two-fold reconciliation through the work of Christ, the provided and the realized, in 2 Corinthians 5:19,20:

God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

God was reconciling the whole world in the work of Christ, but it remains for us to believe the gospel and receive the reconciliation. This does not at all fit the Finney scheme. For him, the atonement reconciles us by motivating us upon hearing of it to repent and believe. But Paul says God accomplished the reconciliation in the Person of Christ before we came to believe.

Many including Finney argue that if one holds that the atonement was general, that is, for all men, and that it was a penal substitution, one must also, to be consistent, be a Universalist and say that all men will eventually be saved. But that is not the case at all. With Paul, we maintain that an objective atonement effecting reconciliation was made by Christ but that this is realized only in those who believe (and persevere). There is no contradiction. And if some with Finney still insist that there is, take it up with Paul and God, because it is they, not the holders of the penal satisfaction view, who are to blame.

Another related objection Finney and others offer is that it would be unjust to both Christ and sinners for sinners to pay the penalty of their sins and go to hell if Christ had already been punished for them. Unjust to Christ for suffering what the sinner ultimately suffers anyhow as well, and unjust to the sinner for bearing what has already been borne by Christ. But this objection also is all air. Christ bore the punishment for my sins and the sins of millions of other believers, all of whom will not suffer eternal damnation as a result. His sufferings and death weren't wasted on us. And Christ did not have to bear each individual's suffering, you know, my sufferings plus your sufferings plus this man's sufferings, that man's sufferings, and on and on times all the people who have ever been born. This is ridiculous, but it is actually Finney's assertion: "To suppose that Christ suffered in amount all that was due to the elect, is to suppose that he suffered an eternal punishment multiplied by the whole number of the elect." Not at all. In Romans five Paul compares the fall of Adam with the work of Christ and calls the former the type of the latter. If all men owe their condemnation to one man's disobedience, then all could receive acquittal through another single Man's obedience. There was no need for separate Redeemers bearing the separate individual punishments of all mankind, nor for a single Redeemer to bear the aggregate sufferings of all mankind. All that was necessary to make atonement was for one Man to bear the punishment that all of us deserve, which is death. Of course, the Romans five parallel is wasted on Pelagians like Finney because they practically deny original sin (or only give us a more plausible account of how sin it works, as we noted in our first article in the Finney series).

I have just one more point to make in rebuttal of Finney on the atonement, but I will have to reserve it for next time along with a summary and conclusion.