ALL MEN, with few exceptions, believe in the existence of a Supreme Being. Only the fool says in his heart that there is no God. All clear-thinking, unbiased people, even in the natural, unregenerate state, are not only believers in a Supreme Being, but are also conscious of the fact that there is a maladjustment between God on the one hand and themselves on the other. They recognize, at least in a limited way, His sovereignty and control over all things and their utter dependence upon and responsibility to Him. As proof of this assertion, note the fact that practically all men, as they approach the inevitable hour of death, turn to God and implore forgiveness for their sins and plead for acceptance in His sight. Many of the outstanding infidels and agnostics, atheists and skeptics--after having spent a lifetime of fighting against God--in the last hours of their earthly pilgrimage, cry out to Him for mercy.¹ These facts show that man feels his utter dependence upon a Higher Power which we recognize as a personal God, whose name is Jehovah, the Self-existing One, the Uncaused Cause of all things.

This feeling of dependence upon the Almighty and the consciousness of alienation from Him lead men to long for restoration to fellowship with their Maker. This restoring of the original normal relation between them is the work of atonement, which doctrine is constantly brought to the front in the teachings of Moses.

What we mean in theological terms by the word atonement--which literally indicates at-one-ment, a state or condition of being at peace with God--is that all barriers separating the soul from God have been removed, and that satisfaction has been made for all one's failures, shortcomings, and sins. In other words, the one for whom the atonement has become efficacious is the one who has been reconciled to God and is acceptable to Him. Hence when he leaves this life, he goes into the presence of God and enjoys the sweetest communion and fellowship with Him forever and ever.

There are various theories of the atonement that have been advanced by different theologians. An examination of any of them shows that those who formulated them, as a rule, took only a few statements of Scripture apart from the general teaching of the Bible and formulated a theory regarding it. In order to convey to us an idea of spiritual realities, truths, and principles, God had to speak in terms that were understandable to man. In doing this, He used many comparisons. But no one illustration, taken from human usage, is adequate to set before man this glorious doctrine, which is one of the profoundest of all themes set forth in the Scriptures. There is truth practically in all the theories regarding the atonement; otherwise none of them would have gained acceptance with any considerable number of people. All of them put together, after the error contained in each has been removed, begin to approximate the great scriptural doctrine regarding reconciliation. The late Dr. E. Y. Mullins, one of America's greatest theologians, has called our attention to this fact.

There are seven or eight theories that have been accepted by various groups in Christendom. For instance, the Greek theologians of the Early Church built up what is known as the ransom theory. According, to it Christ paid to Satan the ransom for our redemption. He did pay the ransom; but not to Satan. There is also the governmental hypothesis, which has enjoyed extensive popularity. Again, we are familiar with the moral influence assumption. There is likewise the commercial theory. Of course the theory which recognizes the vicarious suffering of the Lord Jesus Christ in behalf of fallen men is the correct one. But it has never, in my judgment, been stated fully and accurately so as to comprehend the major factors entering into the real work of the Son of God for the redemption of mankind. Anyone who is interested in this subject--and all ought to be--can look in any good work on systematic theology and find a brief statement at least of the various and leading theories concerning the atonement. ²

Some theories of the atonement cluster around the thought of God's sovereignty as its focal point; others make man's free will the center and undervalue the Divine Majesty. Either of these methods of approaching the problem hinders one from determining the proper perspective and arriving at the true scriptural teaching. God's absolute sovereignty must be recognized in any study of the atonement. At the same time the nature with which God endowed man and his position in the divine economy must likewise be recognized as we formulate our ideas regarding this theme. Instead of thinking of the great doctrine of the atonement in terms of a circle with its one center, we should conceive of it as an ellipse with its two foci. These governing points around which the great teachings of the Scriptures relative to redemption cluster and move are the sovereignty of God and the freedom of man. When the scriptural emphasis of these two doctrines is taken into consideration, and each is related properly to the other, a person can gather and correlate the teachings regarding man's reconciliation to God and can formulate a comprehensive definition of the atonement.