Love's Final Victory / Ultimate Universal Salvation on the Basis of Scripture and Reason

by Horatio

THE ATONEMENT.

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."