The story is told of a young man during the Civil War who wanted to play it safe, so he put on Yankee pants and a Rebel coat. But, to his dismay, he was shot at by both sides. And so, without compromise, I hope to appease both sides of a warring issue, but feel I’m in a no-win position. I speak of the Atonement. Was it universal or particular; was it for all or only the elect?
As much as one side “wrestles the scriptures,” it still comes out, “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” If you change “the whole world” to mean something else; then you must do it later on in John’s first Epistle when he writes, “The whole world lieth in wickedness.” On the other side of the coin, to deny God has an elect people, you must take a penknife, as Jehudi of old, and cut out great portions of scripture.
And so, is it universal or limited? His atonement is sufficient for all, but only efficient to those who believe. We are to, “…do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” Watch these two words in italics as they’re used elsewhere. “[He] is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.”
To me, this is the only way you can make a legitimate offer of the gospel to the whole world. For those who believe in a “Limited Atonement” limit God’s love for the world. But, on the other hand, those who detest “Election,” as the old preacher said, “That’s why God didn’t elect you; He knew you wouldn’t like it.”
Well that’s it, and I can already sense some taking aim.
No comments:
Post a Comment