A sister recently inquired about using a certain popular book as an evangelistic tool. I suggested that she consider using another option, and that I would offer some thoughts on my reservations about that book. Here they are.

After the sin of Adam and Eve, all of history moved to the moment in the fullness of time when Christ on Golgotha would crush Satan's head in fulfillment of Gen. 3:15. In Acts 2:23 and 4:27-28 it is taught that the rulers, the Jews, and the Gentiles gathered together to kill Jesus. Nevertheless, their wickedness only fulfilled "whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur." And, "It pleased the Lord to bruise Him and cause Him to suffer" (Isa.53:10).

Was Jesus dying just to make salvation "possible," or actually securing the salvation of a number no one can number, made up of people from all over the earth? Isa. 53:10-11 clearly teaches that "if He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, and the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; by His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify many, as He will bear their iniquities." Even though Jesus was cut off from among the living by the crucifixion, He still ended up with "offspring," He "justified many," and He "bore the sin of many" (Isa.53:12).

The Scriptures teach uniformly that Christ did not die generally in hopes that some might respond to His agony with faith; rather, He died specifically for a people who were given to Him before the foundation of the world. Many Bible teachers set forth the idea that Jesus died for everyone, but He really didn't secure the salvation of anyone. Only the sinner's decision can make the Savior's death fruitful. In accepting or rejecting Jesus' work, the choices of sinners end up determining the success or failure of Messiah's work. God has done all He possibly can, and now He waits for you to respond positively to the cross. This view is set forth in popular fashion by Max Lucado in "He Did This For You: What God Did to Win Your Heart" (Word, 2000, 64pp.).

In Lucado's view, God's setting forth of Christ is like a carrot hanging in front of a horse. The sheer anguish of Christ is put before the eyes of sinners in hopes that they will be drawn to partake of the carrot. "His promise to do whatever it takes to save your soul" (p. 5) "Armed with nothing more than a passion to win your heart, he came looking" (p. 19). The Lord does all He can, but in the final analysis He does not obtain the salvation of anyone. "God has done exactly what my parents did. He has purchased your passage. He has equipped you for the journey. God loves you so much that he wants you to be with him forever. The choice, however, is up to you. Even though he stands at the door with ticket paid and pocket money for the trip . . . many choose to go in directions other than the one God intends" (p.42).

In this popular view, God is powerless to bestow salvation on sinners. He makes the ultimate sacrifice of sending His own Son to be killed, but even this event can only be a means of influencing sinful human beings to make the right choice. It cannot really purchase and thereby ensure the redemption of anyone. Says Lucado:

"You'll end up in hell. Not because God wants you in hell. His plan for you is heaven. Your destiny is heaven. He'll do anything to get you to heaven, with one exception. There is one thing he won't do. He won't force you. The decision is yours. But he has done everything else . . . With all my heart, I urge you to accept God's destiny for your life . . . Would you let him save you? This is the most important decision you will ever make" (pp.45,50).

Lucado's perspectives on the atonement omit a number of Scriptural teachings that must be set before us on the table in order to have a full-orbed appreciation for what Christ accomplished on the cursed tree. I cannot deal with every relevant Bible passage, but the ones I will present show that there are dimensions to the Lord's work many Bible teachers avoid. The Scripture is our acknowledged touchstone for truth. To present a partial view of Christ's labors as if it were the full picture is to not be honest with the Word of God, and can only result in people being misled. I will go through contexts in God's Word in the order they appear in the Bible, beginning with the Old Testament.

There were numerous animal sacrifices prescribed by Moses. They were all pictures (types, shadows) of what the final Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, would do. These offerings could not take away sin, but Jesus did. Now were these blood sacrifices general and universal, or specific and particular?

On the Day of Atonement that occurred once a year, was the sacrifice offered for everyone in the world, or just for Israel? The nations were excluded from this offering. It was limited to dealing with the sins of Israel only.

In many of the sacrifices for an individual's sins, the hands of the guilty were laid on the head of the animal, thus symbolically indicating that the person's sin was imputed to the animal. This transaction was not nebulous. It was for a specific person's transgressions.

Based on these Old Testament pictures, it would be natural to expect that the sins of specific people would be imputed to the Messiah. Just as the sins of the old covenant people, Israel, were dealt with on the Day of Atonement, so the sins of the new covenant people of God, the church, were laid on Christ. A main point here to grasp is that these sacrifices were substitutionary --“in the place of” – a specific person or group of people.

“God so loved the world.” To take the word “world” here numerically to mean “every man, woman, and child who has ever lived” is to read a foreign Western concept into the text. Who was Jesus speaking to in this context? A bigoted Jewish leader who believed that God’s love rested in Palestine alone. When Nicodemus heard the word “world” from Jesus’ lips connected to God’s love he would have stopped his ears. He could not conceive of God’s love extending to “sinners” and “Gentile dogs.” To Nicodemus “world” simply meant, “that which is non-Jewish,” and “that which is outside of Judaism.” God’s love, in fulfillment of the promise to Abraham – “in you, all nations will be blessed” – is now world-wide, and ultimately includes people from every tribe, kindred and tongue (Rev. 5:9; 7:9).

“Savior of the world.” In this setting Jesus had spoken with a Samaritan woman. The Samaritans were hated by the Jews. This sinful woman believes in Messiah, and then tells her fellow Samaritans about Christ. What would “world” mean to Samaritans, who were excluded from fellowship with Israel? They were excited that this Savior was not just for Jews but for them as outcasts too! This illustrates again that “world” focuses on that which is outside of Judaism.

“What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” Here the Lord clearly indicates that believing in Christ is not a work people do, but is a work that God must do in the human heart. Lucado teaches that God has done all He can, but then must anxiously wait to see who will make the final, crucial act of making the choice to get on the right bus. An old hymn captures the truth of John 6:28-29 when it says in part, “All the fitness He requires is to feel your need of Him; This He gives you, This He gives you, ‘Tis the Spirit’s rising beam.”

“All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me; and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.” Jesus teaches here that there are specific people given by the Father to the Son. When do you suppose these people were “given” to the Son? The only Scriptural answer is “before the foundation of the world.” Bible teachers often quote the end of this verse, “the one who comes will not be cast out,” but they fail to connect it with the opening remark, “All that the Father gives…shall come.” They “come” because they were previously “given.”

“For this reason I have said to you, that no one is able to come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father.” Lucado and other Bible teachers say that people come to Christ on their own, that is, the choice is totally up to them. When have you ever heard popular church leaders announce to people that sinners are not able to come to the Son unless the Father grants them that ability? Jesus often taught his disciples this vital perspective, “I have said to you.” Why is this truth not heard in today’s gospel?

“I lay down my life for the sheep.” Among “the sheep” are believing Jews and Gentiles (10:16). “The sheep” were given to the Son by the Father (10:29). There is no way that “the sheep” can include every person in the world, for in 10:26 Jesus says, “But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep.” In this precious chapter of God’s Word, Jesus states that He gave His life for a specific group of people called “the sheep.” Lucado contradicts this perspective by saying, “But God’s list contains the name of every person who ever lived. For this is the scope of his love” (p.36).

This would imply that every person’s name who ever has lived or ever will live was written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. But that is simply not true. The truth is, He laid down His life for all kinds of people all over the world who were “sheep,” given to the Son by the Father (10:29). “The sheep” refers to believers only, and that is who the texts say He laid down His life for. Likewise, in John 15:12-14, Jesus points His disciples to His example when it comes to love: “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.”

“See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the world has gone after Him.” Here is an example of where the word “world” is used, but no one would suggest that it includes every person ever born. The word “world” here actually would encompass relatively few of the earth’s population. There is an example in early Jewish literature where a teacher says, “Rabbi Ben------ entered the synagogue and the whole world stood up.” Again, no one could or would entertain the idea that “whole world” entails all people on the earth. Such usage is called an “idiom.” Every language has idioms, which the dictionary calls, “an expression in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself.” Years ago I saw a newspaper headline that said, “World mourns Presley’s death.” That’s an idiomatic use of language. Not everybody in the world mourned his death, but many did. No one would argue that the headline had to mean every person who existed in the world.

“For You granted Him authority over all flesh in order that He might give eternal life to all those you have given to Him.” Here Jesus is petitioning the Father in His final days on earth. This text states that Christ has universal authority over every one in order that He can bestow life to those given to Him by the Father. Christ in His earthly ministry accomplished something concrete – “I manifested Your name to the people you gave Me out of the world; they were Yours, and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word” (17:6).

Are you seeing the emerging pattern? The Father gives a people to the Son; the Son gives His life for them; the Spirit comes and dwells in them after Christ is glorified via resurrection. Father, Son, and Spirit are not making salvation potentially possible for every one, but guaranteeing the salvation of no one; rather, they are purposing to save a sinful people from all over the earth, a number so large that no one can count it, and assuring that Jesus will lose none of them, but raise them all up in the last day (John 6:37-40). God’s elect people will be called, justified and glorified (Rom. 8:28-34). Nothing can break the scarlet thread of God’s redemptive purpose. The Father is greater than any threat or obstacle to His saving purpose (John 10:29).

“I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have give Me, for they are Yours.” Here in His high priestly prayer Jesus specifically limits His petition to those given to Him by the Father. He does not pray for “the world.” How do the Lord’s words fit into a theology that posits, as Lucado does, that “God’s list contains the name of every person who has ever lived….He loves the world” (p. 36). Lucado’s views create a situation where the Trinity is apparently at odds with each other. The Father loves the world without exception, but the Son does not include “the world” in His prayer. Something is seriously amuck. People are not constructing their opinions based upon a careful, thorough study of God’s Word.

As sort of an aside, it is significant to note that components of modern evangelism are absent in the Book of Acts. “God loves you” has become almost a trite cliché in modern gospel presentations, yet the word “love” is never used in any of the proclamations in Acts. “God loves you” is never said to anybody, and the phrase “Christ died for you” is never employed in Acts. The apostles never used “altar calls” or led people in “sinner’s prayers.” Instead, they proclaimed Christ as Lord in His death, burial and resurrection, and pointed out gospel patterns in redemptive history. The Lord opened hearts to respond to the gospel, people were baptized, and they started meeting together as assemblies.

“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the Word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” The gospel has now expanded to include the Gentiles. Why were these people turning to the Lord? How was this to be accounted for? Was it because, as Lucado maintains, the choice was theirs (p. 25)? We must think through what is happening here. Was the “belief” unto salvation that occurred attributed to human “choice” or to God’s eternal purpose in Christ? The text is unequivocal – “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” Human origin is ruled out; divine origin is asserted. Lucado’s theology has no place for the whole counsel of God. The will of God, in his scheme, does not result in the salvation of any one; the will of sinful humans is assumed to be the deciding factor in bringing salvation to fruition.

“Lydia…was listening, and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.” Apparently there were not enough heads of families to have a synagogue in Philippi, so Paul spoke to the women who had assembled at the river for prayer. Luke tells us why Lydia came to Christ. It was not because Lydia weighed the evidence and decided to make the right choice, as Lucado would maintain. The text nowhere suggests that as an option. If anyone responds positively to the Gospel, as Lydia did, we are driven by God’s Word to affirm with great joy that it is because the Lord has opened the heart to embrace Christ.

The clear implication is that if the Lord left us to our “choices” as sinners no one would ever come to Christ for salvation. The Lord must command the gospel light to shine into our darkness, or salvation will be unknown. Lucado says that there is one thing God will not do, ”He won’t force you” (p. 45). He misses the point because he does not apparently comprehend the depth of human depravity. If the Lord does not make a sinner willing in the day of His power, no one would ever come to Christ if left to themselves.

“Shepherd the church [ekklesia] of God which He purchased with His own blood.” These words spoken by Paul to the Ephesian elders do not teach that Jesus’ atonement was a general event with no focus. How could God’s Word be clearer? When Jesus died He actually purchased a specific people from all over the world. Jesus died for His “sheep,” His ekklesia. In Romans 6, Paul uses strong Greek words that indicate the people He died for were co-crucified, co-buried, and co-raised with the Lord. Why do Bible teachers generalize Christ’s atonement, when text after text in the New Testament specifies an identifiable object of His sufferings – He purchased the church with His own blood? Does it reflect honesty in handling God’s word if many portions that state that He died for specific people are omitted?

“For if their [the Jews] rejection be the reconciliation of the world [Gentiles], what will their [the Jews] acceptance be but life from the dead?” Here is a fascinating context where the word “world” is used interchangeably with “Gentiles.” Notice the interplay: “by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles. . . . Now if their transgression be riches for the world [Gentiles] and their failure be riches for the Gentiles. . . . for if their rejection be the reconciliation of the world [Gentiles].” The word “world” in this setting is not used in a numerical sense, as in “every person in the world,” but in a broad people-group sense, as in that which is outside of Judaism.

The gospel going beyond Jerusalem and into Gentile areas was the biggest issue faced in the early days of the church. The use of the word “world” in the New Testament must be seen against the backdrop of the “new man” in Christ, in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile. Messiah being a “light to the nations” was a hard pill for the Jews to swallow. God’s love extending to the “world” beyond Palestine was outside of their comfort zone.

“Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her.” Again, in this setting Paul connects Christ’s death with a definite people – the church. Christ is said to be the “Head of the church, He himself being the Savior of the body” (5:23). The first Adam had a bride in His side – Eve. The last Adam had a bride in His side – the ekklesia. If husbands are to have an exclusive love of their wives based on the Lord’s example, would that not tell us that Christ’s love for His bride was specific and exclusive?

How would a wife feel if her husband said, “Honey, I love you greatly and more than any other woman, but I have to tell you that in truth I love all the other women of the world too.” Lucado’s theology portrays Christ as loving all the women of the world equally, but His death for them does not guarantee that He will have a bride – that depends solely on the “choices” the women make on their own.

Paul, on the other hand, has a theology of purpose and victory – Christ comes and purchases with the cross the church given to Him by the Father. Even though Christ is “cut off” from seeing any physical seed, the purpose of the Lord prospers in His hand and He “sees His seed,” His people, the people given to Him by the Father.

According to the Bible, we are “by nature children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3). It isn’t that we can’t do good. We do. It’s just that we can’t keep from doing bad. “There is none righteous, not even one . . . All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:10, 23) [p.15]

“It isn’t that we can’t do good. We do.” That is a false statement. Sinful men, women and children cannot do good. In fact, he cited Romans 3, but omitted the part which says, “There is none who does good, not even one” (Rom. 3:12). This flatly contradicts his assertion that sinners can do good. People in sin are indeed free, but they are only free to act according to their nature. They have no ability to choose the good. Things can only act according to their nature.

An elephant could get up one morning and think, “I want to fly today like those birds,” but he will not be successful in such a venture. Likewise, humans are sinful and wicked, and they can only act according to that nature. Paul says, quoting the Old Testament, “there is none righteous (not one), none who understands, none who seeks for God, none who does good (not one), none who has the fear of God before their eyes” (Rom. 3:10-18).

Lucado thinks people have the innate ability as sinners to choose the gospel, but they don’t. As God said to Israel, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil” (Jer. 13:23). Do you understand now why the Lord had to open Lydia’s heart to respond to Paul’s proclamation? Lydia could not choose Christ in and of herself. The Father chose her, the Son died for her, and the Spirit circumcised her heart to embrace the Messiah. If you are a believer, then be assured the Lord had to open your heart to receive the Son, or it would remain closed forever.

The famous picture of Christ standing outside the door of a sinner’s heart is totally bogus. It portrays no door knob on Jesus’ side of the door. Jesus is totally helpless. He must wait for the sinner to open the door from the other side. If this picture presented the truth as it is, then Jesus would never see any one saved, and He would never have a bride. Sinners have absolutely no ability to do the good and open the door. As Jesus said, “No one has the ability to come to Me, unless it has been granted to him from the Father” (John 6:65).

He came to take us to heaven. His death was a sacrifice for our sins. Jesus was our substitute. He paid for our mistakes so we wouldn’t have to . . . . God put our sin on his Son and punished it there . . . . Jesus receives the blow. Since Christ is between you and God, you don’t. The sin is punished, but you are safe, safe in the shadow of the cross (pp.19,34,35).

Remember, he is addressing these words to everyone without exception. If God did what Lucado says for every person in the world, then why wouldn’t everyone ultimately be saved? If He paid for our sins so we wouldn’t have to be punished, then on what basis could God punish people who never believed in Christ on Judgment Day? If on the cross God punished Christ for the sins of every person who has ever lived, then how could He punish them again for their sins at some future point? Wouldn’t that be “double jeopardy,” punishment for the same crime twice?

In our legal system, “Double jeopardy” is prohibited by the 5th Amendment to the Constitution (cf. www.lectlaw.com/def/d075.htm). If it is said, “Well, Christ paid for everyone’s sins, but if they refuse what He did for them, then God will judge them on the Last Day,” then that would mean Jesus did not in fact pay for all sins on the cross. If God punished Christ as a substitute for everyone so that they wouldn’t be punished, then how can He punish those same sins again at a future date?

How can Lucado assert to people indiscriminately, “The sin is punished, but you are safe, safe in the shadow of the cross” (p. 35), when John 3:36 states that the wrath of God is abiding on (present tense) unbelievers? Only those who believe are “safe.” The rest are under God’s judgment. The notion that God would inflict horrible suffering on His only Son, with the result that He really did not secure the salvation of anyone for certain is a very deplorable view of Christ’s work, and will not square with what the Scripture teaches.

To suggest, on the one hand, that the Son of God would take the blow of God’s wrath for everyone, but, on the other hand, to suggest that He took it not really, but only provisionally, because if they refuse to accept what He did for them, then God’s wrath will fall on them on the Last Day, is to make a mockery of what happened on that cursed tree. Either Christ took the wrath of God in the place of particular people so they wouldn’t receive it, or He didn’t. His work cannot be provisional and conditional, that is, He took God’s wrath for everyone in theory, but if many do not accept His work on their behalf, then in reality they will receive God’s punishment

Lucado’s view of the atonement goes awry either direction you go. He wants to maintain that Christ died for everyone, but the truth is He obtained the guaranteed salvation of no one; yet he also wants to affirm that He really took the punishment – the blow of God’s wrath -- for everyone’s sins, but the truth is He must not have really done that because myriads of people will experience God’s wrath on the day of judgment. A more Scriptural view would be that Jesus secured the salvation of His people by purchasing them on the cross, thereby taking the wrath of God upon Himself in their place – just as the Old Testament animal sacrifice had sin placed on its head and took the blow of death in the place of the transgressor.

According to Scripture, persons (some or all) were co-crucified, co-buried, co-raised, and co-seated in the heavenlies with Jesus. To put it bluntly, whoever Jesus died for will also be saved. Indeed, Jesus was a substitute and ransom for “many” (Isa.53:12; Matt.20:28; Mark 10:45). If He died for all without exception, then all will be saved. That is why some have come to the conclusion of “universalism,” that in the end all people will be reconciled to God. They see the force of the Scriptural vantage point that whoever He died for will be saved. The issue must be faced:

“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some people regard slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” This is probably one of the most often misused and misquoted verses in the New Testament. I’ve heard so many people partially quote it as, “God is not willing that any should perish,” as if that settles the issue. But the context clearly shows that Peter is contrasting two groups:

The “longsuffering” mentioned in v. 9 has a specific object, which is captured well by the KJV, “to us-ward.” Who are the “us”? It is restricted to the “beloved,” those who are Christians. So Peter is saying, “the Lord is longsuffering to us who love Christ, not willing that any of us who will believe should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” The “any” of the oft-quoted phrase, “God is not willing that ‘any’ should perish,” must have an antecedent. The only possible antecedent is the “us-ward” that immediately precedes the “any.”

In v. 16, Peter tells us to “regard the longsuffering of our Lord to be salvation.” The “longsuffering” of the Lord is not just a wish that hopes somebody will make the right choice, but it is a powerful aspect of God’s plan that results in the salvation of His people. To use an out-of-context phrase from 2 Peter 3:9 to challenge the fact that the Father has given a specific people to Christ is not a proper way to handle God’s Word.

I want to point out two crucial occasions where Lucado misuses and takes totally out of context verses of Scripture. He speaks to unbelievers and says, “He has a destiny for your life. ‘For God has destined us not for wrath but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1 Thess. 5:9). According to the Bible, God’s destiny for your life is salvation” (pp. 41, 42).

But Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:9 is not speaking to unbelievers. He is speaking to people who have already believed in the Lord. It is incorrect and misleading to tell unbelievers that they are not destined for wrath but salvation. In 1 Thess. 5 Paul contrasts those destined for wrath, the people of darkness, with the sons of light, who are destined for resurrection life in the last day.

On pp.49-50, Lucado cites Revelation 3:20, “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in. . .” He directs Jesus’ words to unbelievers, and asks, “Would you let him save you?” (p. 50). But such a use of Rev. 3:20 is incorrect. In its context, these words from Christ were spoken to a wayward assembly of believers in Laodicea. To apply this text to pagans on the street reflects an insensitive use of God’s Word, which betrays the original intention of the Lord for this Scripture.

Both the Old and New Testaments teach that Messiah’s work would bring the Lord’s purpose to fruition, and result in salvation for Israel and the Gentiles. Nobody can count the number of people from every tribe, kindred and tongue who were actually purchased by the blood of the Lamb. The Father gave them to the Son before time began. As Christ said to the disciples, “You did not choose me, I chose you.” As Paul summarized so eloquently in 2 Timothy 1:9, “who has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted to us in Christ Jesus from all eternity.”

It is a shame that so many well-meaning Bible teachers are presenting such an anemic, man-centered version of the gospel. To think that Jesus on the cross embraced every person, yet at the end of the day secured the salvation of no one is a God-dishonoring view of the atonement. The Scripture views Adam and Christ as the heads of those they represented. Adam was the head of the human race, and for that reason his sin was imputed to everyone he represented; Christ is the head of the church, and for that reason His righteousness is imputed to everyone He represented. “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming” (1 Cor. 15:23).

At every point in His work Christ represented, stood in the place of, His bride, the church. He did not die to make salvation a possibility, waiting for the choice of depraved people to validate His labors. Rather, in His death He purchased the church of God with His own blood. By God’s grace, we need to find the Scriptural answer to this question: Did Christ die for all the sins of all people, all the sins of some people, some of the sins of all people, or some of the sins of some people?

Lucado makes it sound like God is bending over backwards to get every sinner to make the right choice, and get on the gospel bus. He asserts that God’s “destiny” for all people is salvation. The obvious truth is, many people fail to reach this end. That implies that God’s purposes are thwarted and unrealized in untold instances, notions that cannot be substantiated by God’s Word (Isa. 14:24-27; 43:13; Dan. 4:35). But what about the times in the Bible where it states that certain people are “destined” to judgment and perdition (Rom. 9:22; 1 Pet. 2:8)?

What do Bible teachers do with John 12:37-41? “He had performed so many signs before them, but they were not believing in Him; that the word of Isaiah might be fulfilled, ‘Lord, who has believed our report’. . . . For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere, ‘He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see. . . nor understand . . . nor turn – and I would heal them.’”

And Romans 9:21-24? "Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for dishonorable use? What if God. . . endured with much patience vessels of wrath fitted for destruction? And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles."

I know I have not covered every possible question that can arise, or every troublesome Scripture that can be brought forward. But I do believe that I have presented sufficient Scriptural perspective to raise serious questions about the accuracy of a common view of Christ’s atonement. The idea that God can try so hard to win people’s hearts – even sending His only Son to die as a criminal – but when all is said and done He cannot actually secure the salvation of one person does no justice to the revealed purpose of God in Scripture.

We confess, I trust, that the Bible is not a collection of contradictory statements and perspectives. Harmony was achieved by the Spirit. Any perceived disharmony arises from our inability to properly handle the Word of Truth. Of course, there are some texts that on the surface seem at odds with some of the dimensions I have pointed out. But the texts I have overviewed are unmistakably clear that God has a purpose in Christ to save a people from their sins. Is it an equitable use of Scripture to use a few texts as justification to jettison the main points I have established in the many texts covered? Ultimately, all texts will be harmonious and complementary to one another. May the Holy Spirit give us light as we work together and listen to one another in discerning the mind of Christ in His Word.