ATONEMENT (cont.) wrath of God against sin has no in tensity which requires the cost of Christ’s shed blood. This, of course, is foreign to Scripture—but why should one who ignores the Bible be concerned at so great an inconsistency? The more recent enemy is neo-ortho doxy. From personal contact with some of the followers and reading done in the field, it appears that while some neo-orthodox men claim to defend the fort—others talk as if they are not sure whether they are attacking, defending, or observing the conflict. Regardless of their stated views on the atonement, it becomes apparent that they take a modified stand on what most conserva tives feel to be the Biblical position. Neo-orthodoxy is silent on the efficacy of the shed blood of Christ—the heart of substitutionary atonement. How great is this conflict—a veritable theo logical war! When I reflect upon this conflict and upon my faith, I have no alternative but .to continue to embrace the doctrine of substitutionary atonement — and to aid in defending it from those who would deny its significance. I take this stand for two principal reasons. First, I am compelled by necessity. From what I know of my own personal con dition, I am inescapably drawn to Christ as my Saviour. My efforts toward righteousness fall far short of God’s standard of perfec tion. Guilty and convicted, yet believ ing that I am pardoned by Him. I am in nq mood to alter a belief in Christ that has brought personal peace. Were Christ in His death on the Cross not my sufficient Saviour to cover my sin, then I must relinquish the forgiveness, fellowship and peace which I have enjoyed in God. Should I try to cover my sins, I understand that God would see through my efforts, and my sins would remain an insurmountable ob stacle to fellowship. Since I did not accept Christ as my substitute to make myself acceptable in any particular company of theolo gians, I am not about to forsake God’s blessings to court their favor now. I
raise the question, is it possible for any man to have true peace with God (which I claim through Christ) on any false foundation? I think not! I adhere to the doctrine of the atonement, not only by necessity, but also because I believe it is taught in Scripture as a required and integral part of the Gos pel message. Perhaps Peter captures, most sharply, the heart of this doctrine when he writes in I Peter 2:24, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.” Yet it is difficult to present in one verse, the full intent of substitutionary atonement. Ephesians 2 is one of the clearest chapters in Scripture that re counts both the need of man and the righteous provision of God for the cleansing of sin and restoration of man to divine fellowship. This chapter de picts man as being “ dead in trespasses and sins (v. 1),” by nature and prac tice “the children of wrath (v. 3),” “Having no hope, and without God in the world (v. 12),” and “strangers and foreigners” to the household of God (v. 19). Many other passages substantiate the damaging effect of sin — such as Isaiah 59:2, “But your iniquities have sepa rated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear;” and Colossians 1:21, “And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works . . .” So described, sinful man is certainly beyond all human means of atone ment. The Bible points out with preci sion that the Lord Jesus Christ, exclu sively, could and did atone, for man’s sin. Ephesians 2:13-18 is emphatic: “But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity . . . And that he might reconcile both 12
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker