Atonement Appendix

If someone were to ask me how my vision is, I'd say it's 20/20 - especially in hindsight.  After posting my last article on the atonement, I didn't feel good about it.  Truth is, a topic such as that in a forum such as this tends to generate more heat than light.  This has nothing to do with the comment that was submitted and my response to it, for that was a gracious exchange.  The issue centers on my consideration of the TruthWalk readership and what would most benefit them, to God's glory.  

The atonement debate has been going on for centuries.  We're certainly not going to solve it here.  The reason Bible-believing Christians find it to be such a hot topic of debate in the first place is because there are so many verses that would seem to support both sides of the debate.  This does not mean there is any discrepancy in God's Word - only to our finite understanding.  (The apostle Peter acknowledges near the end of his second letter that some of Paul's writings are "hard to understand."  He doesn't say they are impossible to understand but that they are difficult, nonetheless.)

This evening I read some very wise counsel from theologian Wayne Grudem, whom I highly respect.  (His book, Systematic Theology, is the best of its kind I've come across.  I cannot recommend it highly enough, in light of its theological depth and breadth, its practical wisdom, and pastoral tone.)  Grudem devotes a full chapter to "The Atonement," wherein he explores the various Scriptures and lines of thinking that come into play.  But as he wraps up the chapter, he does something very wise.  He shows how those who hold to particular redemption ("limited atonement") and those who hold to general redemption ("unlimited atonement") agree at several key points.  They include:

1. Both sincerely want to avoid implying that people will be saved whether they believe in Christ or not.
2. Bot sides want to avoid implying that there might be some people who come to Christ for salvation but are turned away because Christ did not die for them....  Both sides want to affirm that all who come to Christ for salvation will in fact be saved.
3. Both sides want to avoid implying that God is hypocritical or insincere when he makes the free offer of the gospel.  It is a genuine offer, and it is always true that all who wish to come to Christ for salvation and who do actually come to him will be saved.
4. Finally, we may ask why this is so important at all.  [Note:  This to me was a critical point in reference to my last blog posting.]  Although Reformed people have sometimes made belief in particular redemption a test of doctrinal orthodoxy, it would be healthy to realize that Scripture itself never singles this out as a doctrine of major importance, nor does it make it the subject of any explicit theological discussion.  Our knowledge of the issue comes only from incidental references to it in passages whose concern is with other doctrinal or practical matters.  In fact, this is really a question that probes into the inner counsels of the Trinity and does in an area in which there is very little direct scriptural testimony - a fact that should cause us to be cautious.  A balanced pastoral perspective would seem to be to say that this teaching of particular redemption seems to us to be true, that it gives logical consistency to our theological system, and that it can be helpful in assuring people of Christ's love for them individually and of the completeness of his redemptive work for them; but that it also is a subject that almost inevitably leads to some confusion, some misunderstanding, and often some wrongful argumentativeness and divisiveness among God's people - all of which are negative pastoral considerations.  Perhaps that is why the apostles such as John and Peter and Paul, in their wisdom, placed almost no emphasis on this question at all.  And perhaps we would do well to ponder their example.

Having read that, I think I'll go pray, asking God for a good dose of that apostolic wisdom!

In the same vein, I would encourage the TruthWalk readership to dig deeply into God's Word.  That was my motive behind raising a controversial topic in the first place.  The fact is, too many Christians have "milk" appetites instead of "meat" appetites when feeding on the Word of God.  They skim the surface of Scripture instead of going down deep.  Incidentally, as I was finishing this, brother Don (the gentleman who commented on my last posting) responded to a personal e-mail I had sent him earlier.  By God's grace, we enjoyed a wonderful dialogue via e-mail that was spawned by the initial posting and ensuing comments.  Lots of Scripture shared in a respectful and gracious manner.  That's how it ought to be, with a desire to help one another grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:18).  

I'd like to summarize our discussion of the Atonement with the following words by Philip P. Bliss:

"Man of Sorrows," what a name

For the Son of God who came

Ruined sinners to reclaim!

Hallelujah! what a Savior!

Bearing shame and scoffing rude, 

In my place condemned he stood;

Sealed my pardon with His blood;

Hallelujah! what a Savior!

Guilty, vile, and helpless, we;

Spotless Lamb of God was He;

"Full atonement!" can it be?

Hallelujah! what a Savior!

Lifted up was He to die,

"It is finished," was His cry;

Now in heav'n exalted high;

Hallelujah! what a Savior!

When He comes, our glorious King,

All His ransomed home to bring,

Then anew this song we'll sing:

Hallelujah! what a Savior!

Here endeth the lesson.