This is from a longer sermon by Ray Stedman, based primarily on Romans, Chapter 9:

The simple truth is that if God did not move upon man’s will to make us believe, not one man in all of time would ever be saved. Jesus said, “No man can come unto me except my Father draw him, and all that my Father had given me shall come unto me,” {cf, John 6:44, 65}. That is the same thought, the same teaching.

“Well,” someone says, “you are teaching that God elects some to be saved and others to be damned.” No, not so. All are lost already, and God is not responsible for that. God never elected man to be damned, that was man’s own choice. The only time that man ever exercised his own free will was when Adam chose to accept the principle that the Devil set before him and to act independently of God. The moment that man made that choice he plunged himself — and the entire race of men following — into the natural results of that decision.

If I had sitting before me here this morning a glass of poison that I knew would kill me, I would have the choice of whether to drink it or not. But once I drank it I no longer would have any exercise of free will — I must reap the results — and this is the condition that God says the human race is in. Having drunk of the dregs of independence from God, at the instigation of Satan, man is plunged into the darkness and the depths of fallen humanity, and it is only God’s saving, electing grace that calls any out at all. It is not God’s hardening that deprives a soul of salvation; that merely leaves him in the state that he is already in. But if God did not move in mercy, we would all be like Sodom and Gomorah — blasted, corrupted, ruined, and burned.

Think about that for awhile when you think over this matter of God’s electing grace.

You see, if we find fault with God for saving some but not all, we are really asserting that men have a right to be saved, that they deserved to have mercy shown them. But the truth is that we deserve nothing but hell — all of us! As long as we demand that God consult us about our salvation, we slam the door to discovering his grace. But if we are willing to let God be God, and be sovereign in the exercise of his will, then we begin to see what it costs God to save men — not only the darkness and the anguish and the loneliness of the cross, but, as Paul points out, even today God is long-suffering in his patient dealing with evil men. God is putting up with all the foulness and hatred and enmity of man.

Listen to a conversation around you sometime, listen to people talk about God, listen to the way they take his name and cast it into the dirt and walk over it — the very one in whose hand is their very breath, listen to the way they speak in arrogant independence of him, and act as though they have the right to do whatever they want to with the very body he created, and died to redeem, listen to that, and then think of how many centuries God has been waiting patiently with that attitude! God could stop evil any time he chose. With but a flick of his finger he could wipe out the whole human race, but he doesn’t do it. And why doesn’t he? Because, as Paul says here, he desires

… to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory, {Rom 9:22b-23 RSV}

Those verses suggest that, in order that some might be saved, there must be some who are lost. I don’t understand this. I don’t think anyone does. But I leave this with the sovereign choice of God who is willing to put up with all that man throws at him, century after century, in patient endurance, in order that he might bring to fulfillment the desires of his heart in the salvation of some.

Now, you will notice that it doesn’t say that God made men fitted for destruction. No, he didn’t. Adam did that, and men have helped him along ever since. But wherever man feels a hunger for God, wherever he finds faith in his heart to believe the record of the Scripture concerning Jesus Christ, wherever man grows weary of his selfishness and of evil, there is where the wind of the Spirit of God is blowing, wooing and fitting the man or woman, little by little, “to be a vessel of mercy prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom he has called.”

This is NOT about John Calvin or Jacobus Arminius. It is about the teaching of scripture concerning the state of the ‘natural’ man and the sovereignty of the God of all mercy. Until I read scripture for myself, I also defended the “free will” of man as adamantly as many do today. After considerable study concerning the nature of man in his fallen state, both inside and outside of Holy inspired scripture, I can only conclude, at this point of my life, that the overwhelming preponderance of scripture supports the plain teachings of Calvin (not the man-invented ‘hyper’ variety) concerning the total sovereignty of God and the total depravity of the natural man. While my ‘natural’ man loathes (vehemently!) certain biblical truths that Calvin taught, my regenerate man embraces them with the same fervor.

My heart grieves for those who have been ‘abused’ by those who claim to be Calvinists and have taken his biblical teaching to extremes Calvin himself never intended.

The entire sermon transcript can be found here.

I went looking for easily understandable definitions of various theories of the Atonement of Christ and found the following at GotQuestions.org. I have included here the introductory paragraphs, the definitions of the three most prevalent in today’s church, and the names of the nine theories presented in the online article located here.

Question: “What are the various theories on the atonement?”

Answer: Throughout church history several different views or theories of the atonement, some true and some false, have been put forth at different times by different individuals or denominations. One of the reasons for this is that both the Old and New Testaments reveal many truths about Christ’s atonement, so it is hard, if not impossible, to find any single “theory” that fully encapsulates or explains the richness of this doctrine. Instead, what we discover as we study the Scriptures is a rich and multifaceted picture of the atonement as the Bible puts forth many interrelated truths concerning the redemption that Christ has accomplished. Another contributing factor to the many different theories of the atonement is that much of what we can learn about the atonement needs to be understood from the experience and perspective of God’s people under the Old Covenant sacrificial system. Since having a correct view of the atonement of Christ is a key to understanding much of the Bible, even a survey of the differing theories of atonement can be beneficial.

The atonement of Christ, its purpose and what it accomplished is so rich that volumes have been written about it, and this article will simply provide a brief overview of many of the theories that have been put forth at one time or another. In looking at the different views of the atonement, we must never lose sight of the fact that any view that does not recognize the sinfulness of man and substitutionary aspect of the atonement is deficient at best and heretical at worst.

Moral Influence Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as demonstrating God’s love which causes man’s heart to soften and repent. Those that hold this view believe that man is spiritually sick and in need of help and that man is moved to accept God’s forgiveness by seeing God’s love for man. They believe that the purpose and meaning of Christ’s death was to demonstrate God’s love toward man. While it is true that Christ’s atonement is the ultimate example of the love of God, this view is also heretical because it denies the true spiritual condition of man and denies that God actually requires a payment for sin. This view of Christ’s atonement leaves mankind without a true sacrifice or payment for sin.
Governmental Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as demonstrating God’s high regard for His law and His attitude towards sin. It is through Christ’s death that God has a reason to forgive the sins of those who repent and accept Christ’s substitutionary death. Those that hold this view believe that man’s spiritual condition is as one who has violated God’s moral law and that the meaning of Christ’s death was to be a substitute for the penalty of sin. Because Christ paid the penalty for sin it is possible for God to legally forgive those who accept Christ as their substitute. This view falls short in that it does not teach that Christ actually paid the penalty of the actual sins of any people, but instead His suffering simply showed mankind that God’s laws were broken and that some penalty was paid.
Penal Substitution Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as being a vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice that satisfied the demands of God’s justice upon sin. In doing so Christ paid the penalty of man’s sin bringing forgiveness, imputing righteousness and reconciling man to God. Those that hold this view believe that every aspect of man, his mind, will and emotions have been corrupted by sin and that man is totally depraved and spiritually dead. This view holds that Christ’s death paid the penalty of sin for those whom God elects to save and that through repentance man can accept Christ’s substitution as payment for sin. This view of the atonement aligns most accurately to Scripture in its view of sin, the nature of man, and the results of the death of Christ on the cross.

Ransom to Satan

Recapitulation Theory

Dramatic Theory

Mystical Theory

Example Theory

Commercial Theory

If you have read the previous Battle Cry posts concerning “What IS the Gospel?” here (Part 1) and here (Part 2), it won’t be difficult to correctly identify the Atonement theory this B4B strongly supports. That, however, is irrelevant if what this blogger supports is not the theory most strongly supported in Scripture. I do think it safe to conclude that the Moral Influence and Governmental theories have influenced the modern/postmodern church for decades and are the prevailing theories behind the ’seeker-friendly’ and quite popular gospel spoken of here.  

Next, we will try and and answer a most important question: “Once we have realized that Christ died for OUR SIN in OUR PLACE, what do we do with that knowledge - what does it really mean to believe it?

Our sin and rebellion is no match for irrestible Grace.

“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.” - John 3:19

“Man loves his own ruin. The cup is so sweet that though he knows it will poison him, yet he must drink it. And the harlot is so fair, that though he understands that her ways lead down to hell, yet like a bullock he follows to the slaughter till the dart goes through his liver. Man is fascinated and bewitched by sin.” –Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892)_Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit_ Vol. 13 [1867]

“I must confess I never would have been saved if I could have helped it. As long as I could, I rebelled and revolted and struggled against God. When he would have me pray, I would not pray. When he would have me listen to the sound of the ministry, I would not. And when I heard, and the tear rolled down my cheek, I wiped it away and defied him to melt my heart. Then he gave me the effectual blow of grace, and there was no resisting that irresistible effort. It conquered my depraved will and made me bow myself before the sceptre of his grace. And so it is in every case. Man revolts against his Saviour, but where God determines to save, save he will. God never was thwarted yet in any one of his purposes. Man does resist with all his might, but all the might of man, tremendous though it be for sin, is not equal to the majestic might of the Most High.” –Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892)_New Park Street Pulpit_ Vol. 4 [1858]