I hear again and again that if you believe Jesus died (i.e. atoned) for your sins you are saved. Paul says the Gospel is the power of salvation to all who believe (Rom 1:16) and thus, putting 2 and 2 together we arrive at the formula that the Gospel is, essentially, atonement.
Although this is indeed good news for those who believe it, I’ve argued elsewhere that this is not the real Gospel but a subjective implication. The real Gospel is the royal proclamation of Jesus’ Kingship, a message about Him, true for everyone, a call to all to obedience and allegiance. Nevertheless I’m prepared to consider that I might be wrong and that Atonement is the Gospel and I would like to explore that possibility.
I’m not willing to accept a subjective Gospel because I don’t think the apostles went out saying “we’ve got Good News for some of you” or “If you believe this, then so and so…”. Thus I am going to assume this Gospel is objectively true whether one believes it or not.
This leads immediately to what I am going to call Universal Atonement which is slightly different from what is usually meant (by Arminians) under that term. Arminians mean that Jesus death achieved potential forgiveness for all men who would receive it. I mean Jesus death achieved forgiveness for all men. This is indeed what John writes:
He [Jesus] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
- 1 John 2:2
Of course one can play John 1 against this and arrive at the Arminian version:
Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God
- John 1:12
However, notice that John 1:12 refers to sonship whilst 1 John 2:2 refers to atonement and forgiveness. We usually conflate the two: those whose sins are forgiven are in Gods family and are sons and daughters. Interestingly Paul tells the Galatians that they are sons through faith in Jesus (Gal 3:26), again linking a response (faith) with sonship and not with forgiveness. Indeed I would argue that Justification is actually a synonym for inclusion in the God-family and not pre-forgivenss of sins as we often think.
Elsewehere, Jesus calls the peacemakers (not believers) “sons of God”. Thus, insofar as your faith causes you to act and be a peace maker you inherit sonship.
Perhaps one shouldn’t make too much of these subtleties because Paul seems to only know one type of Christian and does not differentiate among those who are sons, those who are justified, forgiven, filled with the spirit etc. Nevertheless the point is worth considering – is atonement perhaps really universal and thus forgiveness given to all?
Most Christians would say No! because one has to receive it in order for it to be effective. That’s true in a sense because if we are at enmity with God and he forgives us we can only be reconciled mutually if we understand and accept this.
However, interestingly, if the forgiveness is real from God’s part, because of Jesus universal atonement, we are in the clear in God’s eyes. Whilst a person may still see God as an enemy, be a rebel at heart, disobey and disrespect God, God has given (not just offered) forgiveness. It is quite common that we are called to forgive people who may not receive forgiveness or be reconciled to us.
Given this constellation it is hard to imagine God sending non-Christians to hell – they are forgiven in God’s eyes due to Jesus unconditional sacrifice and they just don’t get the fullness of this gift because they don’t repent and receive and get reconciled. Thus the angels can sing at Jesus’ birth: “peace to all men” (Lk 2:14).
Until now, I’ve believed that atonement was only for believers. Yet if Atonement equals Gospel then it must be objectively true for all and is even Bigger Good News than we had imagined. If Jesus sacrifice covers all sins then there is no need for eternal damnation, just some sort of eternal isolation for those who reject fellowship with God.
It sounds ridiculous but then again substitutionary blood-atonement of the one righteous Man for the many sinners is not very logical (or just) either. Neither is eternal punishment rational and it is of course abhorrent to us. Could it really be that Grace ultimately and exhaustively triumphs over Justice as James writes? I hope so!

2 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 4, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Ashton Fourie
The first verse you quote says that the Gospel is the power of salvation to all who believe – implying that it is not the power of salvation to those who choose not to believe.
It is true that expressions like salvation, becoming a child of God, being born again and becoming part of God’s kingdom are often used interchangeably – and this definitely warrants some close scrutiny. I suspect you’ve opened some avenues for some amazing insights into close study of these various terms and their exact applications, as well as the conditions sets upon them. Could you have been “translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light,” and yet not be a “son of God?” Or could you become a son of God, even if you have not received atonement? Maybe the first obvious response to e.g. the last question is “No”, but is it? What exactly does Scripture really say. As you rightly point out, God doesn’t seem to be particularly bothered with trying to keep within the confines of our logic, much less our suppositions.
As for the idea of there just being some kind of separation, and not eternal damnation. I’m afraid I can’t agree there. Unfortunately there are too many scriptures that are specific about hell.
Mat 5:29
Mat 10:28
Rev 20:15
There are many more.
That Jesus died for all – that I agree with. But salvation seems to definitely be a gift which is offered to those who choose to believe. And those who choose not to, seem to be on a pretty risky path.
June 5, 2009 at 9:36 am
Marc
You make a very good point about Romans 1:16. In fact, that is one of the main reasons why I reject* Gospel 1 (Atonement) and embrace Gospel 2 (Jesus is Lord) because believing G1 seems arbitrary whilst believing G2 implies obedience.
This post was an exploration of G1 in the sense of it being universal and independent of belief. I see why it doesn’t work from Romans 1:16 (and surely other places) but logically it could work – Jesus blood really could cover ALL sin.
I still reject the classic subjective G1 (believe you are atoned and you will be) though because it amounts to salvation by assent. What I do accept is that if you believe in atonement it is a sign you are saved. The miracle of faith is evidence of salvation and not the condition.
* I mean I reject that Atonement IS the Gospel, not that I reject it’s truth.