I was not always convinced that limited atonement was a biblical doctrine. I saw the other four points of Calvinism at least five years before God taught me the truth about the nature of the atonement. I remember tearing in half Arthur Pink’s booklet, Was the Sin Question Finally Settled at the Cross? and throwing it into the wastebasket saying, “I will never believe that!” I now not only believe the truth of limited atonement, but, along with J.I. Packer, affirm that this truth is the very heart of true evangelical faith.
Some have tried to convince me that I could not have been saved when I tore Pink’s booklet in half. One man has vehemently urged me to repent of my false conversion and admit I did not become a true child of God until I became a five-point Calvinist. Many years ago, we published a booklet entitled Decisional Regeneration. We were trying to show that Arminianism really teaches that a sinner’s decision has the power to regenerate his heart and make him a child of God. “Doctrinal Regeneration” would be a good label for the brand of Calvinism that insists that only five-point Calvinists are truly saved. In reality, these people give correct theology the same power that the Arminian gives to his decision. We insist that neither the sinner’s will nor correct theology can give a dead sinner life.
Peter was a saved man when he said, “Not so, Lord.” Our Lord rebuked him and said, “Get thee behind me Satan.” J.C. Ryle correctly observes, “Just because God has sanctified your heart does not mean that he has totally sanctified your brains and taught you all the truth in one instant.” A true child of God can be very mixed up, both theologically and emotionally, and still be in Christ. It is better to be a confused and emotionally upset saint on his way to heaven than to be a well-adjusted and theologically correct, but unregenerate, person on his way to hell. Holding firmly to the truth of sovereign grace is not absolute proof that a person knows the sovereign Lord in a way of saving faith.
The importance of understanding the Doctrines of Grace is not to be minimized. One’s theological understanding does not save his soul, but it does shape the way he understands and preaches the gospel. Sincere Christians, who in their hearts are right with God, can make injudicious statements which proceed from erroneous theology. That was my problem while struggling with limited atonement for over five years.
The following passage is part of a Christmas sermon preached and printed over forty years ago by a man named Noel Smith. He was a professor in a Bible Baptist seminary in the midwest, with a reputation of being a very godly man and a good instructor. Noel Smith rejected Calvinism and embraced universal atonement. This excerpt from his sermon is an example of a man’s theology producing statements that are disturbing in their implications.
Knowing God as I do through the revelation He has given me of Himself in His Word, when I am told that God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance, I know it means that the Triune God has done, is doing, always will do, all that the Triune God can do to save every man, woman, and child on this earth.
If it does not mean that, then tell me I pray you, what does it mean?
What is hell? It is infinite negation. It is infinite chaos. And it is more than that. I tell you, and I say it with profound reverence, hell is a ghastly monument to the failure of God to save the multitudes that are there. I say it reverently, I say it with every nerve in my body tense; sinners go to hell because God Himself cannot save them. He did all He could. He failed.[1]
Noel Smith’s candid statement is shocking. Few preachers, no matter how Arminian they are in their theology, will say publicly that they believe “hell is a ghastly monument to the failure of God.” If, however, Noel Smith’s understanding of 2 Peter 3:9 is correct, no other conclusion is feasible. Mr. Smith is both honest and totally consistent with his view of universal atonement.
If such a great effort on God’s part does not accomplish his intention, then what other word can be used to describe the situation but failure? What is wrong with clearly and publicly stating that “God almighty failed” to accomplish the thing his heart desired the most? If, as Smith concludes, “sinners go to hell because God himself cannot save them,” then God indeed failed! If God “did all he could” and still was not able to accomplish his heart’s desire, then on what grounds is Noel Smith to be faulted for concluding, as he logically does, that “he (God) failed?” If the premise is correct, then the conclusion must also be true. The only real difference between Noel Smith and most evangelical preachers today is that Mr. Smith was honest and consistent with his theology. He rationally followed his position to its logical conclusion.
If universal atonement and Smith’s interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 are both accurate, adherents to the free will system should rejoice that Smith has stated their position clearly and logically. If (1) Christ endured the wrath of God for “every man, woman, and child on earth,” and (2) if it was God’s heartfelt purpose to save “every man, woman, and child on this earth,” and (3) “God has done, is doing, always will do, all he can do to save every man, woman, and child on this earth,” then Mr. Smith’s conclusion is correct. God indeed failed in this system.
C.H. Spurgeon also clearly saw the same logical truth as Noel Smith. Spurgeon made almost the identical statement that Smith did, except he opposed Smith’s position. Here is a classic statement from the prince of preachers:
Once again, if it was Christ’s intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption [the view advocated by Noel Smith], were bought with His blood.[2]
The difference between Smith and Spurgeon is that they are on different sides of the “if.” Spurgeon is decrying the very doctrine that Smith is holding up as a great gospel fact. Both men were Baptist preachers, proclaming what they believed to be the gospel. The century that separates them has seen an astonishing change in that gospel. It is amazing that Spurgeon could openly denounce the exact doctrine that men today preach as the foundation of their whole system of theology. Neither Spurgeon nor this author can be rightly accused of burning straw dummies. The zealous and honest Noel Smith took care of that with great clarity.
It may be embarrassing, and men may try to deny its implications, but the only alternatives to limited atonement are either (1) universal salvation, which is at least consistent with the belief that God is all powerful, or (2) the failure of God, as Mr. Smith’s legitimate application shows. There really are only three choices. Either (1) everyone is going to be saved, (2) God miserably failed, or (3) particular redemption is true.
To those completely convinced of the validity of universal atonement and free will, the doctrine of particular atonement based on God’s sovereign, electing love seems to be unfair and even cruel. The doctrine of universal atonement seems to magnify and broaden God’s love. Actually, the exact opposite is the case, and Mr. Smith, by being consistent, honest, and courageous enough to set forth the ever present, but never spoken, legitimate conclusion and application of universal atonement, has proven the point better than any Calvinist ever could.
The result of the doctrine of universal atonement is manifested in the elevated position of man and his free will as the determining factor in God’s plan of salvation. This exalting of free will and extolling of universal love may at first appear to honor God, but it will ultimately be seen as the first blow at dethroning God and corrupting the very spring of grace from which the gospel flows freely to sinful man. It is a hollow victory that proves that God is all love by reducing him to impotence before man’s almighty will. There is no triumph in declaring that God’s greatest act in history, the cross of Christ, was a colossal failure because man’s “almighty” free will refused to give God a chance.
Bibically literate believers may wonder, “Whatever possessed Noel Smith to make such statements?”
The answer to that question is found in the statements themselves. Mr. Smith was possessed with a burning desire to exalt the love and grace of God. The title of his sermon was “The Middle Man,” and he was extolling the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Mr. Smith was exalting the amazing love of God in giving his only begotten Son to die on the cross. It was Smith’s purpose to so exalt this great display of God’s love that his hearers might be gripped with the glory of the birth, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ. Noel Smith was setting forth Christ as the “Middle Man” who alone could stand between a holy God and sinful creatures and perform the ministry of reconciliation.
No preacher ever had a more glorious subject, nor could be possessed by a higher motive. I believe Noel Smith loved God and wanted to exalt his amazing grace. Unfortunately, Noel Smith also held the error of universal atonement. It is tragic but true that pure motives are not sufficient to correct either bad theology or its regrettable results. Mr. Smith sincerely attempted to exalt the love and grace of God. This he attempted to do in perfect harmony with his Arminian doctrine of universal atonement. Did this sincere attempt to glorify God’s grace achieve its purpose, or did this consistent and conscientious man come close to blasphemy? I will leave it up to the reader to come to his own conclusion.