Extent of the Atonement--The Dilemma of Universal Atonement and Partial
Salvation--Human Systems of Truth--Methodist Theology--Tradition and
Reason--Dr. Dale's View--No Divine Failure--Imperfection of All
Theological Systems--"Sufficient but not Efficient"--Undeveloped
Possibilities--The Angel in the Apocalypse--Omnipotence Both in the
Physical and the Moral Realm--The Short Epoch of Time--Advance of the
Presbyterian Church in the United States--Individual Congregations
--Hardening Effects of the Narrower View--The Softening Influence of
Dreams--Divine Capacity of Suffering--Persistence of What is Good--Good
Men Who Are Not Christians--Insanity--Blind Tom.
In this larger view all difficulty disappears in regard to the extent of
the Atonement. Sometime ago men had little conception of the operation
of saving grace beyond this life. It was believed that every man fixed
his eternal destiny here and now. But then there would arise in
thoughtful minds a difficulty about the extent of the Atonement. To a
candid mind it was manifestly universal. The statements of Scripture are
full and clear on that point, yet it would appear very strange that
there would be universal Atonement, but not universal salvation. Would
not that look very like a failure of the divine plan? If Christ gave
Himself for the sins of the world, would not the sins of the world be
put away? If He is called the Saviour of the world, is He so only in
name, and not in fact?
But clearly, all the world was not saved. Here was the dilemma. The
difficulty was, to square universal Atonement with partial salvation. So
the difficulty was solved by one party in adopting the theory of a
limited Atonement, and so that doctrine became a cardinal plank in the
Calvinistic theology. It could not be conceived of as a possibility that
God would make provision for the salvation of the whole world, and thus
express His desire for the salvation of the whole world, yet that His
provision and His desire should fail of their effect.
Surely this was right. But it was not right to ignore the plain teaching
of Scripture for the sake of building up any human system. It would have
been better to accept the clear statements of the word, contradictory
though they might appear, and trust that some day divine harmony would
be revealed.
That revelation has come now. The harmony consists in the fact that all
the world will be redeemed yet, in accordance with the provision that
God made for, and desires, such a consummation. The difference is, that
the operations of divine grace are not restricted to this short span of
time, as men supposed. But the time will come! Oh, yes; it will come! If
Christ tasted death for every man, He will save every man! Praise His
name forever! The very thought is enough to awaken our everlasting
songs!
Herein consists, as it seems to me, the weakness of the Methodist
theology. In that Communion it is believed that the Atonement is
universal, but that salvation is not universal. Thus the divine
intention is supposed to fail of its effect. So I think it would appear
to any mind untrammelled by tradition.
But putting tradition aside, what does reason say? And what do our
highest thoughts of divine love, and power, and purpose say? Are not our
best ideas of fitness in accord with the view that Atonement and
Salvation are co-extensive? When we once receive the idea that divine
love and power have no petty restrictions of place or time, will we not
accept the larger theory? And this one conception will transform and
transfigure all our thoughts of redemption. I wish some of our Methodist
brethren would look into this matter candidly, and say if I am
not right.
Thus the Calvinists made one mistake, and the Arminians made another. If
both would now adopt the larger view, that one idea would compose nearly
all their differences, and unite them in a bond which our fathers never
dreamed of. Would it be too much to hope for that? I suppose it would,
just at present. But the spirit of unity is here, and I believe that
some day it will embody itself in form.
* * * * *
I quote elsewhere the saying of an orthodox divine that "God infallibly
accomplishes everything at which He aims." Then what does He "aim" at?
Dr. R. W. Dale tells us. He says: "Every man bears the image of God, and
was created to abide in the Home of God." Is not that direct and clear?
"Every man was created to abide in the Home of God." That was God's aim.
But is it "accomplished?" The orthodox view is that it is not. According
to that view there are untold millions of men who will never see "the
Home of God." Here is a manifest contradiction. Surely if "every man was
created to abide in God's home," and if every purpose of God will
infallibly be accomplished, there is salvation for the whole race.
* * * * *
This question has a very direct bearing on the idea of Restoration. An
important section of the church believes that whoever is atoned for will
infallibly be saved; and no others. But as all men are not saved, to be
logical the framers of that system inferred that the Atonement is
limited in its extent. They had no idea of the Atonement operating
beyond this life; so their theory necessarily consigned the majority of
the human race to everlasting torment.
What a pity it was that they had not the larger view. Then there would
have been no logical need to limit the Scriptural idea of Atonement. In
that case, they would have to admit on their own ground that the
Atonement issues in the salvation of the whole race. But their system of
doctrine was logically welded together by a number of propositions; and
not one of these propositions could be omitted without dissolving the
whole structure. So the limited Atonement idea was adopted as a
necessity; and I suppose men schooled themselves to believe it was
Scriptural.
As a matter of fact, however, and to a mind not biased by any previous
opinion, the Universality of the Atonement is taught in Scripture with
absolute clearness. So much is this the case that the doctrine is
regularly preached in most if not all Evangelical Churches to-day, even
in those which deny it in their creed. And if the question were put to
the people generally, both lay and clerical of all churches, and a
candid spontaneous answer required, there is no doubt that an
overwhelming majority--perhaps a thousand to one--would say that Christ
died for the whole race. We ought to take warning, then, not to make our
systems of theology too complete, realizing how little we know as yet of
God's works and ways.
* * * * *
But now, if we take the framers of that system on their own ground, what
is the result? They believed that the Atonement would issue in
salvation for every one for whom it was intended. That is not a
far-fetched idea, by any means. It is only saying that God will
accomplish that which He intended. A universal Atonement will therefore
mean universal salvation. Certainly that is not attained in the present
life; therefore it will be attained in the life to come. It is a strong
argument for universal salvation.
If only this larger view had broken on men's vision there would have
been no difficulty. But the "due time" for such a revelation had not
come. It was no fault of our fathers, therefore, that they could not see
that which was not as yet revealed. The only fault was, that they tried
to make their theological system too perfect. The fact is, that it is
not for us to make any theological system perfect. New light may come,
and cause us to re-arrange or enlarge our ideas. "O the depth of the
riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge, of God!"
Another argument for the ultimate salvation of all, is this: that Christ
identifies Himself with the suffering and the unfortunate of the whole
race. It will be remembered that in the last judgment He is supposed to
say, "I was hungry, and ye fed me; I was thirsty and ye gave me drink;"
and so on. Then he explains: "Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the
least of these my brethren, ye did it unto me." You observe that He
makes no distinction between those whom He atoned for, and those for
whom he did not. He includes all the unfortunate of the whole race, even
the criminals who were in prison. He identifies Himself with them every
one. And if He does, is it to be supposed that He died for only some of
them? How could He identify Himself with those for whom He had not
atoned, and for whom there could not be any salvation? It is said that
His Atonement is "sufficient" for all; yet on the theory of a limited
Atonement it is claimed that it is not "efficient" for all. But whether
it be "sufficient" or "efficient," our Lord makes no difference. How
could He so utterly and so tenderly ally Himself with any for whom He
had not provided the possibility of salvation--a salvation admittedly
"sufficient" for all? The inevitable presumption is, that He atoned for
them every one, and so could identify Himself with them every one.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that salvation is provided for
each one of them; and that if they do not attain to it in this life,
they will in the next. That may appear a vast problem to us whose views
of time and space are so limited; but it may be easy to Him to whom the
whole span of time is but a passing epoch in the everlasting years.
Apart from this somewhat legal aspect of the case, there is another
aspect of it which must appeal with great force to every reflective
mind. I mean the undeveloped possibilities stored up in every human
soul. We may sink so low as to appear but as dull clods; but the glory
of man is the potentiality within him, capable, it would seem, of
everlasting development.
Witness that "angel" who conducted St. John through the world of bliss,
and explained to him the meaning of the wonderful scenes that were
witnessed. So glorious was that "angel" in form, and so vast in
knowledge, that John fell down at his feet to worship him. Then it
turned out that the "angel" was just a man. He said he was one of the
prophets. Perhaps he was Moses or Isaiah or Ezekiel, or some one of the
writers of the Old Testament. They lived in a very primitive age. But
see this prophet now. In a few centuries he has been developed to
amazing heights of knowledge and blessedness. And we may well believe
that such a process of development will go on to all eternity.
Now are we to believe that God has created such possibility of
development; yet that it will issue in a single case in utter failure?
Utter failure! No; not merely utter failure, but a fate ten thousand
times worse than that. For endless torment would mean the development of
all possible evil to all eternity. Are we prepared to say that such will
be the issue in a single instance, of God's wise, and powerful, and
righteous administration? Surely, surely, there will be no
such failure.
We cited elsewhere that it is the law of the universe that what is good
will endure. But here we have not merely a contravention of that law,
but an utter and everlasting breakdown of the divine administration. In
a universe where God rules in wisdom, in righteousness, and in love; and
where moreover He is possessed of all power, not only physical but
moral, it seems almost blasphemy to think of such failure.
There is a passage in the Epistle to the Romans that seems to me to put
the question beyond doubt. I refer to the fifth chapter. We have there
the fulness of salvation set forth in wonderful terms. In particular, we
have the doctrine of the Atonement presented in all its divine efficacy.
And you will notice that it is set forth both as to its quality, and
its extent.
As to its quality, it is said to be more than sufficient; and as to its
extent it is represented to be as wide as the human race. As to its
quality, take these words: "Where sin abounded grace did much more
abound." As to its extent, take these: "As by one man's disobedience
many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made
righteous."
It seems to me a wonderful thing that these glorious truths were in
obscurity so long. I suppose it must be due to the fact that the idea
of a limited Atonement came to be really believed. There was evidently
a limited salvation; must there not then be a limited Atonement? So that
doctrine became a necessary part of a certain system of theology; and
men clung to it--honestly no doubt--thinking that if that doctrine would
go, their whole system of truth would have to go along with it. All
credit is thus due to the men who were so tenacious of what they
believed to be the truth.
* * * * *
But we get larger conceptions as time goes on; and it seems a marvel
that we had not such conceptions sooner. Take for instance the word
"many" as it occurs twice in the one sentence that we have quoted. Has
it not the same meaning in both cases? Both good language and good
sense--apart from all preconceived opinion--would say that it has. But
in the one case "many were made sinners." There is no doubt about the
meaning of the word there. Certainly the whole race was made sinners.
There is no room for controversy on that ground. But then, in the same
sentence it is declared that "many shall be made righteous." If the word
"many" in the first instance, means the whole race, has it not the same
significance in the second instance? Surely words could not be plainer,
or more emphatic.
To be sure, we may not see how such a promise is going to be fullfilled.
In earlier times it seemed impossible; nay, a contradiction of what was
passing before men's eyes every day. Many that were made sinners were
certainly not made righteous. But men saw only the first part of God's
administration. They had no idea that another part had to come, in which
the promise would be fulfilled. So the promise was minimized, and shorn
of its glorious meaning. Surely, the promise will be fulfilled. God is
not restricted to this short epoch of time.
Then in regard to the quality or value of the Atonement, we have a
wonderful testimony in these words: "Where sin abounded, grace did much
more abound." That is, grace was much more than sufficient to put away
the sin, universal as it was. So I reverently think the Atonement could
be applied effectually to other worlds, if they need it. But passing by
that point, for it is a mystery, I would emphasize the fact that the
Atonement was greater than the sin. And think you, will it fail of
its effect?
I wish that thoughtful theologians in the Methodist Church would duly
consider this. Their theory is, that the Atonement is universal; but
they deny universal salvation. Is not that the same as to say that in
the case of some, Christ died in vain? But is that possible? If God
really desires the salvation of all men, as we know He does; and if He
has made provision for the salvation of all men, as He certainly has;
will He not somehow and somewhere accomplish His desire? As to the
doctrine of falling finally from grace, which Arminians believe, and
Calvinists deny, on this basis both are right. Suppose that there is a
final falling away in this life, and Restoration in the next, is there
not harmony in the highest sense? O yes; in this larger view, there is
both falling from grace, and final perseverance.
* * * * *
In fact there is nothing that would unite the Evangelical Churches so
effectually as a consensus of belief in universal salvation. This may
seem a startling proposition to those who have not given the subject
much attention; but after all, it is but an expansion of the idea that
God's "counsel will stand, and He will do all His pleasure."