Love's Final Victory Part 11

I quote elsewhere the saying of an orthodox divine that "G.o.d 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 G.o.d, and was created to abide in the Home of G.o.d." Is not that direct and clear?

"Every man was created to abide in the Home of G.o.d." That was G.o.d'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 G.o.d." Here is a manifest contradiction. Surely if "every man was created to abide in G.o.d's home," and if every purpose of G.o.d 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d!"

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 s.p.a.ce are so limited; but it may be easy to Him to whom the whole span of time is but a pa.s.sing 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sing before men's eyes every day. Many that were made sinners were certainly not made righteous. But men saw only the first part of G.o.d'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. G.o.d 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 pa.s.sing 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d's "counsel will stand, and He will do all His pleasure."

I TOOK THE LARGER VIEW.

We are not surprised, therefore, that we have in Scripture such explicit statements as to the universality of the Atonement. I was brought up in that church which is identified with the theory of a limited Atonement.

At an early age, however, I took the larger view of the Atonement, and I hold that view with increasing conviction now. In fact I do not see how the idea of a limited Atonement ever came to command the a.s.sent of intelligent men, except that it was found to be necessary as a part of a preconceived system of theology.

Surely it was a great pity that men thought it necessary in bygone years to make their systems of theology so complete. Of course they are complete in the divine mind. But they cannot be so in ours. We see but a short way into the whole scheme of things. And when men thought that G.o.d's plan of grace is restricted to the present life, it is not so surprising that they favored the idea of a limited Atonement. They believed that air of G.o.d's purposes of salvation are realized in this life. But when we realize that G.o.d's saving plans extend into the next life, it is not hard to believe in the Atonement being universal. Thus we can take the plain statements of Scripture in their obvious sense, without twisting them into unison with some preconceived theory.

In my view we ought to accept the plain statements of the Word of G.o.d.

If they seem to involve impossibilities, let us wait for further light.

To me it seems that universal Atonement involves universal Restoration: and that idea solves the whole difficulty.

A noted Professor of Theology once sought to entrap me on that very point. I took a firm stand on the universal theory of the Atonement, He wanted to know what that would lead to; evidently hoping to commit me to Universalism. I said that if it was revealed we ought to accept it, no matter what it led to. At that time I had not accepted the idea of Restoration, but I strongly believed in the universality of the Atonement. Now the idea of Restoration rounds out and completes that view.

A SPONTANEOUS ANSWER.

I fully believe that in this matter I do not stand alone. I believe that this same liberal view of the Atonement is held, consciously or unconsciously, by the great majority of our ministers and members. If a spontaneous answer were asked as to whether Christ died for the whole of mankind or a part only, I feel sure that the general response would be that he died for all. And I appeal to you, if that is not your most inner and sacred conviction? In your best moods, when all theological subtleties are put aside, can you endure the idea of a limited Atonement? I appeal to all men of a candid, progressive mind, if we are not really at one here? Then be faithful to that inner light. It is the light of G.o.d.

This doctrine of universal Atonement was endorsed lately by the American Presbyterian Church. In Article VIII of the "Brief Statement" adopted by that Church, these words occur: "For us He fulfilled all righteousness, and satisfied eternal justice, offering Himself a perfect sacrifice upon the cross to take away the sin of the world." Thus the American Church has moved unto the broader basis of universal Atonement.

THE SPIRIT OF THE LARGER DOCTRINE.

And not only has that Church formally taken that position, but the spirit of the larger doctrine has so prevailed in the Church for some years past, that individual congregations could take the broader basis without having their soundness in the faith called in question. In a manual published by the Third Presbyterian Church of Chicago, for instance, the "Articles of Faith" of that Congregation are set forth under seven heads. Article III reads thus:--"We believe that Jesus Christ our Mediator is truly G.o.d and truly man, and that by His sufferings and death on the cross He made Atonement for the sins of the world; so that the offers of salvation are sincerely made to all men, and all who repent and believe in Him will be justified and saved." That exposition of the doctrine entirely accords with my view. It was by mere accident I saw this manual; it may be presumed that many other congregations have taken similar ground without challenge.

Not only so, but we have the doctrine of a universal Atonement accepted and clearly expressed in the statement of doctrine proposed as a basis of union between the Presbyterian, the Methodist and the Congregational Churches in Canada, so the orthodox people have cut themselves quite loose from their ancient moorings. Here is a marvel indeed. Wedded to the Confession of Faith as the Presbyterian Church has been, at least in theory, that Confession is now ignored. Surely the truth is advancing.

I am glad to see such an explicit statement of this great doctrine. I can only imagine that the compilers of the Canadian Hymn Book forgot for the time their technical theology, and adopted the expression of their hearts. For, despite all theology, universal Atonement is the faith of the people. Yes, and it is the faith of the preacher. Since I was a child I never heard a limited Atonement preached; but I have heard a universal Atonement preached hundreds of times; and no one raises a cry at want of orthodoxy.

I am glad, especially, that we have been delivered from the hardening effects of the narrower view. In earlier times there were theologians who almost gloated over the d.a.m.nation of millions of our race. And they were d.a.m.ned--so these theologians thought--simply because they were not elected and Christ had not died for them. With the utmost equanimity orthodox divines contemplated their eternal torment. To such hardness can men be brought by a false view, and in the name of religion. So the position of Queen Mary was logical enough from that point of view. When she was asked if she thought it right to burn heretics, she said: "How can it be wrong for me to burn them for a few minutes, when G.o.d Almighty is going to burn them for ever?"

Speaking of the hardening influence of such views, it is a great joy to think that we shall not always be so callous as we are now. Deep down in our souls there is a susceptibility to tenderness that we do not generally suspect. Sometimes, from no cause that we can see, there breaks on our hearts a ripple of peace like a breath of perfume from some far off land of flowers, or a s.n.a.t.c.h of melody from some distant land of song.

I have the idea that one of the functions of sleep is to arouse this latent tenderness. At all events, we have sometimes a strange tenderness in sleep, of which we hardly seem capable in our waking hours. I remember one very vivid occasion of this kind. A man whom I had seen but twice--a very common man, with no special attraction--I dreamed of, and in my dream I loved him with the utmost intensity. When I suddenly awoke, and when I realized that in this life I should likely never see him again, it was almost agony. Many a time I have had such experiences in sleep; and I doubt not that so have others. Such experiences do seem to be forecasts of the tenderness that we shall yet have for every brother of the human race, when we come to our best. With such feelings, how could we bear the thought that any so dear to us are in everlasting torment?

It may be well to quote here a few pa.s.sages of Scripture in which the doctrine of universal Atonement is stated with all clearness. It is stated again and again without any ambiguity that Christ died for all.

It is said that "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." It is said that "He gave Himself a ransom for all," It is said that He "tasted death for every man." We read that "the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all."