Perhaps I am incapable of perceiving aspects of Scripture that are seen by others, but it really doesn't seem that veiled to me.
God takes no delight in losing any of His human creatures by their being eternally separated from Him. That's why He instituted a path of escape for "ANYONE" who "CHOOSES" to take it but Jesus did not serve as God's accepted substitute sacrifice for "EVERYONE" including those who "CHOOSE" to reject God's offer for "atonement". And the "window of opportunity" is strictly confined to the time that we have in life in this worldly realm prior to our death ("die once, then comes judgment").
All the rest relating to "irresistible grace", "election", and the concept of "those being chosen by God to be saved have nothing to say about it"- they are "destined by God to either be saved or lost", seems to contradict the context of Scripture and the manner in which God's application of grace has always been displayed throughout the Bible.
I don't know the motive for others taking the more "Calvinistic" approach, but it "appears to me" to display the struggle they have in dealing with God's sovereignty vs man's accountability, or "free will". No matter how they struggle to account for the aspect of "we sinners having the free will to choose our own destiny", it cannot be allowed when the concept of "irresistible grace" is applied.
Sorry, Wade, if it appears I am trying to put word in your mouth. This is just the impression I get when viewing such matters and the diverse positions taken by theologians.
Personally, I am not frustrated with this aspect of how some are judged to be unpresentable before the Throne, while others are judged to be "covered in the blood" and clothed in "righteousness" while simultaneously not compromising the "sovereignty" of God and His interaction with His pitiful, human, creatures. His "grace" is undeniably exhibited in His provision for a remedy for all those who choose to accept it, even when we are unworthy to be given that option.
This is one of the few areas in relating to God and how He does things, that I am comfortable with and feel confident that my position is consistent with the doctrines related to salvation, judgement, atonement, and "election". I have no problem in fitting the pieces of this puzzle together.
I like dialoguing with thinkers like you. I completely get what you are saying. I have no problem with a hopeful universalist or a person who believes in sovereign election. I also have no problem with people who believe in 'potential atonement,' but the trigger is man's decision to 'confess Christ and trust the Savior' (this is the majority position of evangelicals). The great comfort I have in efficacious atonement is that my soul is in His hands. As unstable as I can be, I'm glad my salvation is of the LORD. Thanks for your excellent comment, as always!
Thanks for this article Wade. Highly researched. Appreciate your direct, yet humble tone. I know years ago when Drs. Yarnell, Harwood, and others authored a document that reflected a non-Calvinistic Southern Baptist view of the atonement, it was called Pelagian by Dr. Mohler. It was anything but though. Several leaders in the SBC endorsed it (which if Pelagian would make them heretics). A bit disappointed in Dr. Mohler's assessment of the doc. I have removed myself from these so called atonement wars and instead focused on telling others about Jesus/making disciples. But, when I come to a point in scripture, as I preach that deals with the subject, I try to be a bit more humble about it. I know there are Christians throughout Christian history that have debated this subject and we are no where near having the absolute truth on the matter. That truth won't be resolved this side of heaven. Until we all gather around the throne and worship our Lord and Savior, I link arms with fellow believers who differ on this and cooperate to share the good news to a lost and dying world. I am not saying studying this subject is not worth it, I am saying, fighting and dividing is. Thanks again.
Amen, Robin. I appreciate your humility and your theology. I'd rather identify with a man who believes in general atonement, loves Jesus, and cooperates with other believers for Kingdom causes than a man who believes in particular atonement, loves the church, and disfellowships with other believers who disagree.
"[38] John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.” [39] But Jesus said, “Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. [40] For he who is not against us is for us. "
Luke 9:49-50 NASB1995
[49] John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us.” [50] But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.”
The reason I do not believe in Universal Atonement is contained in these two passages. There are people who are against Christ. Anyone who is not against Christ is "for" Christ. For this reason, I believe there are far more of the "elect" than one would expect. However the most telling point for me is not my own understanding. I have no part in anyone's salvation, not even my own. I have been graced by God to believe in his son and I have no right to judge anyone else. My obligation is to
"but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; "
1 Peter 3:15 NASB1995
If I do that I have shown love to both God and the person I am speaking to. I have no part whatsoever in their salvation. That is entirely God's domain.
Beautiful, brother, and lots of theological and spiritual meat! I support your belief on this important doctrine, as well as your generosity toward those who disagree.
Wade said, "The great comfort I have in “efficacious atonement” is that my soul is in His hands. As unstable as I can be, I'm glad my salvation is of the LORD."
“Efficacious atonement”…hmmm, Wade, you never cease to teach me new things!
I again had to go lookup terminology used in the deep conversations you present to interpret the meaning. I learn so much from you, like knowing the labels identifying the many positions taken in the course of theological discussions. However, even though I thought of myself as being a "dispensationalist", I don't agree with how you define the position of those in your teachings.
I’m so often a dummy in that regard, having a position on a matter and not knowing that there is a “label” that defines me. I’m like the pig that thought he was a “duck” until someone told him that he was a “pig”. “How do I know I am a pig?”, asked the Pig. “Well, a pig snorts and oinks, has a twisted tail and roots with his nose in the dirt.” “Oh! So THAT’S what I am! I am a PIG!”
That’s me.
You mentioned, "The only alternative to denying God’s sovereign, selective love or God’s universal love is to turn God into a weak, impotent deity with fickle love dependent on the performance of His subjects." and,
"A god of fickle love and impotent power isn’t good news. When we make our god as fickle as we are, we have turned the Creator into a person just like us."
Yet “I” DO uphold to the absolute position of God’s sovereignty, while at the same time, I do not interpret the judgment upon those who “reject God’s offer of the blood of the sacrificed Savior- thereby disqualifying themselves from God’s gracious salvation” as being any indication of God’s love being anything less than “universal”. His “offer” of salvation is indeed “universal” because He loves ALL of His human species unconditionally and that love is offered to everyone who accepts it. AND I believe my position portrays the exact opposite of suggesting that God is a god of fickle love and impotent power. ANYTHING BUT!
God is "sovereign" yet "just". Jesus loved and was broken hearted when the rich young man turned away from His offer of salvation. I.e., universal love- applied judgement/divine justice.
But to say that, in effect, God forces His salvation upon ALL people regardless of their acceptance or rejection of His salvation, seems to me to compromise the integrity of God’s character, justice, and the true value of the divine blood sacrifice of His Son on the cross, by undermining the extreme violation and offense of “sin”.
You mention, “The great comfort I have in efficacious atonement is that my soul is in His hands. As unstable as I can be, I'm glad my salvation is of the LORD.”
My position is that our soul is in effect, NOT “in the hand of God” until it is redeemed. Given that we have no salvation prior to that redemptive act taking place, nobody can claim that their “salvation is of the Lord” until they are covered by the redemptive blood of Jesus Christ.
Fortunately, you and I both HAVE been redeemed because of our acceptance of the offer of redemption provided by God. HALELUJAH!
Praise God, nobody’s salvation is based upon our correct interpretation of these doctrines; i.e., “In non-essentials- LIBERTY!”
Completely understand this: "I do not interpret the judgment upon those who “reject God’s offer of the blood of the sacrificed Savior- thereby disqualifying themselves from God’s gracious salvation” as being any indication of God’s love being anything less than “universal”. His “offer” of salvation is indeed “universal” because He loves ALL of His human species unconditionally and that love is offered to everyone who accepts it. AND I believe my position portrays the exact opposite of suggesting that God is a god of fickle love and impotent power. ANYTHING BUT!" - Thanks for clarifying! To CONFESS the Messiah as Savior and LORD is the key in your mind. I completely understand. That said, I have a couple of friendly questions: "Why did you confess Jesus as Savior and LORD? Who makes you different from those who don't?" As always, I love and appreciate your humility, beautiful comments, and thoughtfulness. Never ever change until the sacred Scripture and the Holy Spirit lead you to change your thinking. I could be wrong, but the Spirit never is.
Wade, you are a great professor! I really admire the grace you always exhibit and your sincerity in honestly pursuing the exchanging of ideas with the motive of our growing in understanding and spiritually through that process.
I know where you are heading, in terms of the question you ask regarding my having a sense of conviction of my sinful nature that drove me to the cross, when others may not have had a similar experience; i.e., "divine selection".
My response is that I believe EVERYONE does have that convicting presence of God's Holy Spirit urging them toward making a decision as to whether they are going to submit to that urging or reject it. Hence, God's boundless love for ALL of His human creatures. Therefore, ALL people are accountable for what they do with "Jesus" (Gospel).
It is impossible to prove, but equally impossible to disprove. As to why I DID submit to following His leading while other do not, I don't know. I simply accept that there are those who do submit and those who do not.
I'll never forget passing by a young Thai man (Chances are 99% that he was Buddhist), who was sitting alone on the seashore, staring into the horizon of that beautiful site. I thought at the time, "That man is contemplating where all that beauty came from." I bet he was. I believe that God's Spirit was urging him to consider there is a Creator God, and he should pursue learning about Him. I bet he, like so many Thais I came to know, knew in his heart the futility and hopelessness of what he grew up being taught in the Buddhist temple.
Some do respond to that convicting discomfort that comes from God's Holy Spirit pursuing them, and most do not. But he will be held accountable.
I believe that there are mysteries veiled by God's infinite nature and plan to which we human creatures will never conceive or understand in its entirety while we are living in this fallible, yet-to-be-glorified state. A risk is that we might be so determined to arrive at a position on such matters that we misinterpret the divine message and its intent. Trust me when I say that it is not my intent to say that "You are wrong and I am right". In typical "Wade Burleson" style, I say, "It really doesn't matter if we leave this world not knowing who is right!"
But that's what I perceive is done when theologians are adamant about saying that "God selects those whom He will save and who He will not", or, "that being saved is a matter of irresistible force that only the 'select' experience while others do not.", or that "God has figured out a way that He intends to eventually save everyone, no matter what their decision was while living in this life."
No, in spite of thousands, maybe millions, of theological scholars who are MUCH more learned than I, holding those positions, I see it as a futile attempt to derive a solution to a question that has not been provided and that it flies in the face of what "I" see as being the greater context of the salvation and judgment explanation given throughout Scripture.
Thank you again for allowing me to be involved in the dialogue. I love it!
Perhaps I am incapable of perceiving aspects of Scripture that are seen by others, but it really doesn't seem that veiled to me.
God takes no delight in losing any of His human creatures by their being eternally separated from Him. That's why He instituted a path of escape for "ANYONE" who "CHOOSES" to take it but Jesus did not serve as God's accepted substitute sacrifice for "EVERYONE" including those who "CHOOSE" to reject God's offer for "atonement". And the "window of opportunity" is strictly confined to the time that we have in life in this worldly realm prior to our death ("die once, then comes judgment").
All the rest relating to "irresistible grace", "election", and the concept of "those being chosen by God to be saved have nothing to say about it"- they are "destined by God to either be saved or lost", seems to contradict the context of Scripture and the manner in which God's application of grace has always been displayed throughout the Bible.
I don't know the motive for others taking the more "Calvinistic" approach, but it "appears to me" to display the struggle they have in dealing with God's sovereignty vs man's accountability, or "free will". No matter how they struggle to account for the aspect of "we sinners having the free will to choose our own destiny", it cannot be allowed when the concept of "irresistible grace" is applied.
Sorry, Wade, if it appears I am trying to put word in your mouth. This is just the impression I get when viewing such matters and the diverse positions taken by theologians.
Personally, I am not frustrated with this aspect of how some are judged to be unpresentable before the Throne, while others are judged to be "covered in the blood" and clothed in "righteousness" while simultaneously not compromising the "sovereignty" of God and His interaction with His pitiful, human, creatures. His "grace" is undeniably exhibited in His provision for a remedy for all those who choose to accept it, even when we are unworthy to be given that option.
This is one of the few areas in relating to God and how He does things, that I am comfortable with and feel confident that my position is consistent with the doctrines related to salvation, judgement, atonement, and "election". I have no problem in fitting the pieces of this puzzle together.
I like dialoguing with thinkers like you. I completely get what you are saying. I have no problem with a hopeful universalist or a person who believes in sovereign election. I also have no problem with people who believe in 'potential atonement,' but the trigger is man's decision to 'confess Christ and trust the Savior' (this is the majority position of evangelicals). The great comfort I have in efficacious atonement is that my soul is in His hands. As unstable as I can be, I'm glad my salvation is of the LORD. Thanks for your excellent comment, as always!
Thanks for this article Wade. Highly researched. Appreciate your direct, yet humble tone. I know years ago when Drs. Yarnell, Harwood, and others authored a document that reflected a non-Calvinistic Southern Baptist view of the atonement, it was called Pelagian by Dr. Mohler. It was anything but though. Several leaders in the SBC endorsed it (which if Pelagian would make them heretics). A bit disappointed in Dr. Mohler's assessment of the doc. I have removed myself from these so called atonement wars and instead focused on telling others about Jesus/making disciples. But, when I come to a point in scripture, as I preach that deals with the subject, I try to be a bit more humble about it. I know there are Christians throughout Christian history that have debated this subject and we are no where near having the absolute truth on the matter. That truth won't be resolved this side of heaven. Until we all gather around the throne and worship our Lord and Savior, I link arms with fellow believers who differ on this and cooperate to share the good news to a lost and dying world. I am not saying studying this subject is not worth it, I am saying, fighting and dividing is. Thanks again.
Amen, Robin. I appreciate your humility and your theology. I'd rather identify with a man who believes in general atonement, loves Jesus, and cooperates with other believers for Kingdom causes than a man who believes in particular atonement, loves the church, and disfellowships with other believers who disagree.
Wade, your dad who sits in the heavenly host of Christ Followers must be very proud of you and your work...
Thank you, Jay!
Mark 9:38-40 NASB1995
"[38] John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.” [39] But Jesus said, “Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. [40] For he who is not against us is for us. "
Luke 9:49-50 NASB1995
[49] John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us.” [50] But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.”
The reason I do not believe in Universal Atonement is contained in these two passages. There are people who are against Christ. Anyone who is not against Christ is "for" Christ. For this reason, I believe there are far more of the "elect" than one would expect. However the most telling point for me is not my own understanding. I have no part in anyone's salvation, not even my own. I have been graced by God to believe in his son and I have no right to judge anyone else. My obligation is to
"but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; "
1 Peter 3:15 NASB1995
If I do that I have shown love to both God and the person I am speaking to. I have no part whatsoever in their salvation. That is entirely God's domain.
Beautiful, brother, and lots of theological and spiritual meat! I support your belief on this important doctrine, as well as your generosity toward those who disagree.
(Okay, please allow one final rebuttal)
Wade said, "The great comfort I have in “efficacious atonement” is that my soul is in His hands. As unstable as I can be, I'm glad my salvation is of the LORD."
“Efficacious atonement”…hmmm, Wade, you never cease to teach me new things!
I again had to go lookup terminology used in the deep conversations you present to interpret the meaning. I learn so much from you, like knowing the labels identifying the many positions taken in the course of theological discussions. However, even though I thought of myself as being a "dispensationalist", I don't agree with how you define the position of those in your teachings.
I’m so often a dummy in that regard, having a position on a matter and not knowing that there is a “label” that defines me. I’m like the pig that thought he was a “duck” until someone told him that he was a “pig”. “How do I know I am a pig?”, asked the Pig. “Well, a pig snorts and oinks, has a twisted tail and roots with his nose in the dirt.” “Oh! So THAT’S what I am! I am a PIG!”
That’s me.
You mentioned, "The only alternative to denying God’s sovereign, selective love or God’s universal love is to turn God into a weak, impotent deity with fickle love dependent on the performance of His subjects." and,
"A god of fickle love and impotent power isn’t good news. When we make our god as fickle as we are, we have turned the Creator into a person just like us."
Yet “I” DO uphold to the absolute position of God’s sovereignty, while at the same time, I do not interpret the judgment upon those who “reject God’s offer of the blood of the sacrificed Savior- thereby disqualifying themselves from God’s gracious salvation” as being any indication of God’s love being anything less than “universal”. His “offer” of salvation is indeed “universal” because He loves ALL of His human species unconditionally and that love is offered to everyone who accepts it. AND I believe my position portrays the exact opposite of suggesting that God is a god of fickle love and impotent power. ANYTHING BUT!
God is "sovereign" yet "just". Jesus loved and was broken hearted when the rich young man turned away from His offer of salvation. I.e., universal love- applied judgement/divine justice.
But to say that, in effect, God forces His salvation upon ALL people regardless of their acceptance or rejection of His salvation, seems to me to compromise the integrity of God’s character, justice, and the true value of the divine blood sacrifice of His Son on the cross, by undermining the extreme violation and offense of “sin”.
You mention, “The great comfort I have in efficacious atonement is that my soul is in His hands. As unstable as I can be, I'm glad my salvation is of the LORD.”
My position is that our soul is in effect, NOT “in the hand of God” until it is redeemed. Given that we have no salvation prior to that redemptive act taking place, nobody can claim that their “salvation is of the Lord” until they are covered by the redemptive blood of Jesus Christ.
Fortunately, you and I both HAVE been redeemed because of our acceptance of the offer of redemption provided by God. HALELUJAH!
Praise God, nobody’s salvation is based upon our correct interpretation of these doctrines; i.e., “In non-essentials- LIBERTY!”
Thank you.
Completely understand this: "I do not interpret the judgment upon those who “reject God’s offer of the blood of the sacrificed Savior- thereby disqualifying themselves from God’s gracious salvation” as being any indication of God’s love being anything less than “universal”. His “offer” of salvation is indeed “universal” because He loves ALL of His human species unconditionally and that love is offered to everyone who accepts it. AND I believe my position portrays the exact opposite of suggesting that God is a god of fickle love and impotent power. ANYTHING BUT!" - Thanks for clarifying! To CONFESS the Messiah as Savior and LORD is the key in your mind. I completely understand. That said, I have a couple of friendly questions: "Why did you confess Jesus as Savior and LORD? Who makes you different from those who don't?" As always, I love and appreciate your humility, beautiful comments, and thoughtfulness. Never ever change until the sacred Scripture and the Holy Spirit lead you to change your thinking. I could be wrong, but the Spirit never is.
Wade, you are a great professor! I really admire the grace you always exhibit and your sincerity in honestly pursuing the exchanging of ideas with the motive of our growing in understanding and spiritually through that process.
I know where you are heading, in terms of the question you ask regarding my having a sense of conviction of my sinful nature that drove me to the cross, when others may not have had a similar experience; i.e., "divine selection".
My response is that I believe EVERYONE does have that convicting presence of God's Holy Spirit urging them toward making a decision as to whether they are going to submit to that urging or reject it. Hence, God's boundless love for ALL of His human creatures. Therefore, ALL people are accountable for what they do with "Jesus" (Gospel).
It is impossible to prove, but equally impossible to disprove. As to why I DID submit to following His leading while other do not, I don't know. I simply accept that there are those who do submit and those who do not.
I'll never forget passing by a young Thai man (Chances are 99% that he was Buddhist), who was sitting alone on the seashore, staring into the horizon of that beautiful site. I thought at the time, "That man is contemplating where all that beauty came from." I bet he was. I believe that God's Spirit was urging him to consider there is a Creator God, and he should pursue learning about Him. I bet he, like so many Thais I came to know, knew in his heart the futility and hopelessness of what he grew up being taught in the Buddhist temple.
Some do respond to that convicting discomfort that comes from God's Holy Spirit pursuing them, and most do not. But he will be held accountable.
I believe that there are mysteries veiled by God's infinite nature and plan to which we human creatures will never conceive or understand in its entirety while we are living in this fallible, yet-to-be-glorified state. A risk is that we might be so determined to arrive at a position on such matters that we misinterpret the divine message and its intent. Trust me when I say that it is not my intent to say that "You are wrong and I am right". In typical "Wade Burleson" style, I say, "It really doesn't matter if we leave this world not knowing who is right!"
But that's what I perceive is done when theologians are adamant about saying that "God selects those whom He will save and who He will not", or, "that being saved is a matter of irresistible force that only the 'select' experience while others do not.", or that "God has figured out a way that He intends to eventually save everyone, no matter what their decision was while living in this life."
No, in spite of thousands, maybe millions, of theological scholars who are MUCH more learned than I, holding those positions, I see it as a futile attempt to derive a solution to a question that has not been provided and that it flies in the face of what "I" see as being the greater context of the salvation and judgment explanation given throughout Scripture.
Thank you again for allowing me to be involved in the dialogue. I love it!