[drstevej]

Finney did precisely reject the penal view of the atonement and did embrace the governmental theory of the atonement. The grammarian is restating Finney.

Read Finney on justification where he clearly distances himself from the central doctrinal understanding of the Reformation (i.e. forensic justification).

The following article gives background on the ancestry of the governmental theory.

====

hope the links are coded correctly.

[RnMomof7]

I am feeling VERY smart .....geeeeeeeeee Matchett-PI I GOT IT :>) thanks to you I saw the fatal error immediately and called it..thank you Mat

[The Grammarian]

I suppose that I am restating Finney, although, personally, I find very little with him that I agree with. Governmental theory has support from Scripture--Heck, Is. 53 gives support to it ("The chastisement by which our peace is effected," v. 5)--and, although Penal theory has support from the same verses, I would think this was to be expected, since the two theories appeal to the same people (Gentiles with some point of reference to judicial systems).

But interestingly enough, out of all the theories that Mr. Paton presents, the only one whose logical conclusion is Limited Atonement is the Penal theory. The Jews themselves would have viewed the atonement with the Priesthood as their primary point of reference, as is evidenced by the whole of the Book of Hebrews. "But this man [Jesus], because he continueth forever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them" (He. 7:24,25). The logic behind a priesthood, or even Our Lord's own High Priesthood, is that it is provision--the High Priest did not make particular sacrifices for particular people, but one offering for the generality of his people, after all--and not exactment.