Charles Grandison Finney on Natural / general revelation

No position located on this map

Searched in the sources read for this figure and not found. A limit of the reading rather than a claim about the figure — a source not yet read could settle it.

THE POSITION

Nothing found. The one passage read that comes near the question grades guilt by light: the heathen are guilty, but less so than hearers of the gospel, "the degree of their guilt being less by as much as their light is less." That says the heathen have some light and are answerable for it; it does not say whether creation and conscience reveal God clearly enough to leave everyone without excuse, which is what this locus divides on. The Systematic Theology treats the moral law as known by reason but does not take up the knowledge of God apart from Scripture in the lecture searched. Not found in the two texts searched, not a claim that he never addressed it.

WHAT OTHERS HOLD HERE

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.