On why I disagree with universal atonement

It is my firm opinion that the doctrine of universal redemption is unscriptural and destructive of the gospel. I am also sure that there are many who have zero interest on the matter. These are the people who see no need for doctrinal exactness and have no time for theological issues which show up divisions between so called "Evangelicals". Many will read the title of this blog and find it so shocking they they will refuse to read this blog at all. But it is hoped that this blog will find itself some readers of a different spirit. There are signs today of a new upsurge of interest in the theology of the bible: a new readiness to test traditions, to search the Scriptures and to think through the faith. It is to those who share this readiness that this blog is offered, in the belief that it will help us in one of the most urgent tasks facing Evangelical Christendom today--the recovery of the gospel.

My last remark may cause the raising of some eyebrows, but it seems to be warranted by the facts.

There is no doubt that Christianity today is in a state of perplexity and unsettlement. In such matters as the practice of evangelism, the teaching of holiness, the building up of local church life, the pastor's dealing with souls and the exercise of discipline, are and of equally widespread dissatisfaction with things as they are and of equally widespread uncertainty as to the road ahead. This is a comples phenomenon, to which many factors have contributed; but , if we go to the root of the matter we shall find that these perplexities are all ultimately due to our having lost our grip on the biblical gospel. Without realizing it, we have during the past century traded that gospel for a substitute product which, though it looks similar enough in points of detail, is as a whole a totally different thing. Hence our troubles; for the substitute product does not answer the ends for which the authentic gospel has in past days proved itself so mighty. The new gospel conspicuously fails to produce deep reverence, deep repentance, deep humility, a spirit of worship and a concern for the church. Why? I would suggest that the reason lies in its own character and content. It fails to make men God-centered in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts because this is not primarily what it is trying to do.

One way of stating the difference between it and the old gospel is to say that is is too exclusively concerned to be "helpful" to man--to bring peace, comfort, happiness, satisfaction--and too little concerned to glorify God. (Read that twice if you need to.) The old gospel was "helpful" too--more so, indeed, than is the new--but(so to speak) incidentally, for its first concern was always to give glory to God. It was essentially a proclamation of Divine sovereignty in mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the mighty Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace, It's center of reference was unambiguously(ahem...point for word usage =) ) God. But in the new gospel the center of reference is man. This is just to say that the old gospel was religious in a way that the new gospel is not. Whereas the chief aim of the old was to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better. The subject of the old gospel was God and His ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him. There is a world of difference. The whole perspective and emphasis of gospel preaching has changed.

From this change of interest has sprung a change of content, for the new gospel has in effect reformulated the biblical message in the supposed interest of "helpfulness". Accordingly, the themes of man's natural inability to believe, of God's free election being the ultimate cause of salvation, and of Christ dying specifically for His sheep are not preached. These doctrines, it would be said are not "helpful"; they would drive sinners to despair, by suggesting to them that it is not in their own power to be saved through Christ. (the possibility that such despair might be beneficial is not considered, it is taken for granted that it cannot be, because it is so shattering to our self-esteem) (again you may need to read that twice) However this may be the result of these omissions is that part of the biblical gospel is now preached as if it were the whole of that gospel; and a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth. And so we appeal to men as if they all had the ability to receive Christ at any time; we speak of Gis redeeming work as if He had done no more by dying on the cross than make it possible for us to save ourselves by believing; we speak of God;s love as if it were no more than a general willingness to receive any who will turn and trust; and we depict the Father and the Son, not as sovereignly active in drawing sinners to themselves, but as waiting in quite impotence "at the door of our hearts" as we say, for us to let him in.

It is undeniable that this is how we preach; perhaps this is what we really believe. But it needs to be said with emphasis that this set of twisted half-truths is something other than the biblical gospel. The bible is against us when we preach in this way; and the fact that such preaching has become almost standard practice among us only shows how urgent it is that we should review this matter. To recover the old, authentic, biblical gospel, and to bring our preaching and teaching and practice back into line with it, is perhaps our most present need.

I'm certain that many who might read this would think that all I'm doing is trying to defend limited atonement--which is one of the five points of Calvinism, and assume that in speaking of recovering the gospel I just mean that I just want everyone to be a Calvinist.

These are worth considering so I will very briefly address them. Defending limited atonement as if this was all a reformed Christian who wanted to expound the heart of the gospel could every really want to do! And in consideration of wanting everyone to become Calvinist as if I had no interest beyond recruiting for a party and as if becoming a Calvinist was the last stage of theological depravity, ad had nothing to do with the gospel at all. It has to be understood that there is a drastic difference in people being able to choose and God doing the choosing. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself. One view presents three great acts of the Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind--election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit--as directed towards the same persons, ad as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view and any other view gives each act a different reference the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel and of election, those hearers who respond, and denies that any man's salvation is secured by any of them. One makes salvation depend on the work of God the other on a work of man man's own contribution to salvation; one gives all glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing operates it. Where the free-willers say "i owe my election to my faith" the Calvinist say ''I owe my faith to my election"

Redemption according to Arminianism, secured for God a right to make this offer, BUT does not of itself ENSURE that anyone would ever accept it; for faith, being of mans own, is not a gift that comes to him from calvary. Christs death created an opportunity for the exercise of saving faith but that is all it did. Calvinist however define redemption as Christs actual substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners, through which God was reconciled to them, their liability to punishment was forever destroyed, and a title to eternal life was secured for them. In consequence of this, they now have in God's sight a right to the gift of faith, as the means of entry into the enjoyment of their inheritance.

Calvary in other words, not merely made possible salvation of those for whom Christ died; it ensured that they would be brought to faith and their salvation made actual. The Cross saves. When the Arminianist say " I could not have gained my salvation without Calvary" the Calvinist say "Christ gained my salvation for me at Calvary"

My salvation in the Arminianist view depends not on what Christ did for me, but on what I subsequently do for myself. Whether I call myself a Calvinist hardly matters, what matters is that I should understand the gospel biblically.

No If we believe this truth we will be lead to bow down before a sovereign Saviour who really saves, and to praise him for a redeeming death which made it certain that all for whom He died will come to glory. It cannot be over-emphasized that we have not seen the full meaning of the cross till we have seen it as the divines of Dort display it as the center of the gospel, flanked on the one hand by total inability and unconditional election, and on the other by irresistible grace and final preservation. For the full meaning of the Cross only appears when the atonement is defined in terms of these truths. Christ died to save a certain company of helpless sinners upon whom God had set His free saving love. Christs death ensured the calling and keeping--the present and final salvation--of all whose sins He bore. That is what Calvary meant, and means, The Cross saved; the Cross saves. This is the heart of true Evangelical faith; as Cowper Sang--

"Dear dying lamb, They precious blood
shall never lose it's power,
Till all the ransomed church of God be saved to sin no more"

You can rest assured this is only part one.

Lates