Peace, be still . . .

After reading another argument for ‘limited atonement’ in today’s devotional, I searched several commentaries and theology books to see if there is a reasonable way to think about this issue. I didn’t expect much because theologians have debated it for years, but I did find two very satisfactory articles that put my mind to rest.

First, the Bible gives verses that support all views, but all agree that Christ died to reconcile us to God and sinners must accept what He has done and put their faith in Jesus Christ. One viewpoint assumes that if Christ died for all but some do not believe, then His death was not sufficient. This means their sin is punished twice. , once on Christ and again on the person who perishes. (Hang in there, the second article is a sigh of relief.)

To this assumption, one article asks this question: Did the Israelite who refused to apply the Passover blood to the door of his house have his sins paid for twice? When the Passover Lamb was killed, sins were covered, but if he did not put the blood on the door, death came to that house. Was this a second payment for his sins? Of course not. The first and sufficient payment was simply not applied to that house. Death after failure to apply the blood was a just retribution for not appropriating the sufficient sacrifice. Then this author says the atonement of Christ paid for the sins of the whole world, but the individual must appropriate that payment through faith. He quotes these verses:

“In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:19-20)

Briefly, it says ‘the world was reconciled to God, but those reconciled people need to be reconciled to God.’ The death of Christ pays for all the sins of all people. However, no individual has his account settled with God until he believes. If he never believes, then even though the price has been fully paid, he cannot enter into the glory of forgiveness. The death of Christ is like a wealthy benefactor paying the tuitions of all students in all schools everywhere. If that happened, what should we be telling students? The good news that their tuitions are paid. Christ died for all. Then what should we be telling the world?

Not everyone accepts that approach, but the second article settles this in my mind. I’ve slightly edited it just to shorten it a little. The author says:

“Finally, we may ask why this matter is so important after all . . . it would be healthy to realize that Scripture itself never singles this out as a doctrine of major importance, nor does it once 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 . . . A balanced pastoral perspective would seem to be to say that this teaching of particular (limited) 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.” (Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.)

There are biblical truths that are revealed yet other issues that are unclear and best left until God chooses to make them plain. He does exhort us to unity and to love one another, not argue issues that we don’t understand or cannot reconcile. As the first author quoted put it, what are we supposed to be telling people, that ‘Christ only died for some people’ or that ‘Christ died for your sins’?

^^^^^^

Jesus, today’s devotional does not give me anything that helps me in a practical sense other than I love You because You died for my sin and saved me, and that I need to stop reacting to the idea of limited atonement and get on with sharing the good news of what You have done, and rejoicing in the fact that You are God and You know what You are doing!