Dr. Robert L. Reymond in his “A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith” wrote:
“If Christ by his death actually propitiated God’s wrath, reconciled God, and paid the penalty for sin (which is what I mean by an atonement of infinite intrinsic value), and if he sacrificially substituted himself for (peri), on behalf of (hyper), for the sake of (dia), and in the stead and place of (anti) sinners, then it follows that for all those for whom he substitutionally did his cross work he did all that was necessary to procure their salvation and thus guarantee that they will be saved. But since neither Scripture, history, nor Christian experience will tolerate the conclusion that all men have become, are becoming, or shall become Christians, we must conclude that Christ did not savingly die for all men but for some men only—even God’s elect. If, on the other hand, Christ did his work for all men without exception, and if he did not intend its benefits for any one man in any sense that he did not intend it for any and every other man distributively, since again neither Scripture, history, nor Christian experience will allow the conclusion that all men are saved, it necessarily follows that Christ actually died neither savingly nor substitutionally for any man since he did not do for those who are saved anything that he did not do for those who are lost, and the one thing that he did not do for the lost was save them. It also follows necessarily, since Christ by his death actually procured nothing that guarantees the salvation of any man, and yet some men are saved, that the most one can claim for his work is that he in some way made all men salvable. But the highest view of the atonement that one can reach by this path is the governmental view. This view holds that Christ by his death actually paid the penalty for no man’s sin. What his death did was to demonstrate what their sin deserves at the hand of the just Governor and Judge of the universe, and permits God justly to forgive men if on other grounds, such as their faith, their repentance, their works, and their perseverance, they meet his demands. This means, of course, that the actual salvation of those who are saved is ultimately rooted in and hangs decisively upon something other than the work of him who alone is able to save men, namely, in something that those who are saved do themselves in their own behalf. But this is just to eviscerate the Savior’s cross work of all of its intrinsic saving worth and to replace the Christosoteric vision of Scripture with the autosoteric vision of Pelagianism.”
HT: Patrick Hines
Article by Tom Ascol, written in 2012 (original source here)
I thank God for all the talk about the gospel among evangelical churches today. Granted, some of it can degenerate into trite jingoism and anomalous platitudes, but still, at least the necessity and centrality of the evangel is once again being recognized by believers who purportedly take their identity from it and who agree that evangelism is our great work. Considering where American evangelicalism was 30 years ago, this is a huge improvement.
This does not mean that Thabiti Anybwile’s “mild rant” against all the modern talk about the gospel is completely unwarranted. Bunyan warned about the kind of groupies who only love religion when it walks in “silver slippers” and gospel-centrality certainly seems to be enjoying that kind of status in our day. When it becomes chic to talk about the gospel then watch out because much gospel-talk will contain more talk than gospel. So I tip my hat to Thabiti’s point.
But I do not think we are in any danger of obsessing over the gospel. In fact, I fear that our case is quite the opposite. Particularly, I am afraid that we have yet to begin to plumb the depths of the gospel’s sufficiency. The gospel is most certainly an exclusive message. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Peter reiterated that point when he said, “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The gospel is a very narrowly defined message. It is all about Jesus–who he is, what he has done and why that matters. It is the only message that saves those who believe.
But the gospel has implications that are infinitely broad. It applies to everything. That is why Paul can say what he does in 1 Corinthians. When he first went to Corinth he “decided to know nothing among [the Corinthians] except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (2:2). He preached an exclusive message: the gospel. Yet, as his letter indicates, he recognized that the gospel applies to everything. Dissension, jealousy, immaturity, injustice, slavery, sexuality, marriage, singleness, the future, the past–all of these subjects and more are addressed by Paul in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. In that sense, no matter what the problem is, the answer is always the gospel.
One of the greatest challenges that a church faces as devotes itself to “the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and prayers” (Acts 2:42) is keeping the gospel as the sole foundation for unity. Over time, as associations and relationships grow within a body it is inevitable that church members will discover that they have other things beside the gospel in common with some of their fellow members. This is neither good nor bad. It is simply a reality.
The temptation that this inevitability presents, however, is making those other things more important than the main thing that we share in common, that is, the gospel. It usually happens subtly and even unconsciously. Families that homeschool their children can naturally gravitate to other homeschoolers. Sports enthusiasts can do the same. Young married couples naturally enjoy spending time with others close to their age and stage of life, as do young people, single adults and senior adults. The relationships forged along such affinities are not necessarily bad and can even be very beneficial. There is nothing wrong with closer relationships developing along those kinds of lines.
Where such relationships can become problematic is at the point that they begin to take on more importance than the gospel. When your affinities start to trump the gospel in your decision making you can be sure that Christ has been supplanted as the basis for your fellowship.
Here are some indications that this may be happening in your church.
When statements like this are being heard:
“I just don’t feel at home in that church because there aren’t enough _________ (fill in the blank however you want to: homeschoolers; Republicans; young people; old people; single people; married people; Cubans; business people; bikers; surfers; professionals; blondes; left-handers, etc. etc. You get the point).
When those who are in any of the above (or other) affinity groups find it impossible to relate to believers who are not.
If you find yourself thinking that you don’t really have anything in common with an older (or younger) member or single (or married) member or an adoptive (or childless) family, it’s time to back up and reexamine what the basis of your fellowship really is.
If we are living out the conviction that the gospel really is enough then we will not require anyone to be in our “age and stage” of life in order to enjoy genuine fellowship with them. Age, race, marital status, occupation, hobbies, etc. will all be recognized and appreciated but they will not be allowed to be attached to the gospel as a necessary basis for fellowship.
As that happens then the manifold wisdom of God will be put clearly on display before a watching world. God will be glorified. His gospel will be adorned. And His church will be strengthened.