“But look for a moment at the opposite side [Mr. Pink’s], which holds that all God has done and reveals is in view of the elect only, and that all He has wrought in Christ Jesus is in effect for the church, and that He does not care about the world, except to judge it at the last day. This may be put rather bluntly, for I do not present such grievous narrowness toward man and dishonor of God and His Son in as polished terms as those might desire who cherish notions so unsavory and unsound. But it is true that a certain respectable class around us do see nothing but the elect as the object of God. Their doctrine supposes only the second goat, or the people’s lot. They see the all-importance of substitution, but Jehovah’s lot has no place as distinct.
“How came the two contending parties of religionists not to see both goats? The Word of God reveals both. . . . Plainly there are two goats. The goat of propitiation is to provide in the fullest manner for the glory of God, even where sin is before Him. In fulfilling it, what was the consequence? Christ was forsaken of God that the believer should never be forsaken. He bore the judgment of sin that God’s glory might be immutably established in righteousness. Thus grace in the freest way can and does now go out to every creature here below.
“But there is much more. Besides opening the sluices that divine love might flow out freely everywhere, we also find another line of truth altogether: the fullest and nicest care that those who are His children should be kept in peace and blessing. . . . God took care, not only to vindicate His own glory and nature, but to give them knowledge of salvation by the remission of their sins. The sins are all out to be borne away.
“Even the type demonstrates . . . that we require these two distinct truths to maintain the balance of God’s truth. . . . They are admirably held together; they compose God’s truth. It is quite true that in the first goat God has secured His majesty and His righteous title to send forth His message of love to every creature. Again, in the second goat He has equally cared for the assurance of His people, that all their sins, transgressions and iniquities are completely borne away. How could the truth of atonement be more admirably shown by types beforehand?”
Before leaving this part of the subject, let us refer to the words of another servant of God: “Christ is both high priest and victim, has confessed all the sins of His people as His own, and has borne our sins in His own body on the tree. The two goats are but one Christ, but there is the double aspect of His sacrifice—Godward and bearing our sins. The blood is the witness of the accomplishing of all, and He is entered in not without blood. He is the propitiation for our sins.”
The error of the one-sided Calvinistic theology in the denial of propitiation in its wide scope for the whole world has necessitated a determined but futile attempt to remove or explain away every scripture which supports it. Take the verse which explains that Christ was the propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:22And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. (John 2:2)), so that His propitiatory sacrifice furnished the righteous foundation on which our sins have been removed; it also says, “And not for ours only, but also for the . . . whole world.” The words in the King James translation “the sins of ” are definitely not in the Greek and are shown in italics in many Bibles, thus indicating that they were added by the translators. He was not a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, but He is the propitiation for the whole world. The writer of the previous paragraph continues: “He is the propitiation for our sins. But in this aspect the world comes in too. He is the propitiation for the whole world. All has been done that is needed. His blood is available for the vilest, whoever he may be. Hence the gospel to the world says, ‘Whosoever will, let him come.’ In this aspect we may say Christ died for all, gave Himself a ransom for all, an adequate and available sacrifice for sin for whoever would come — tasted death for every man.” But Mr. Pink says, “What then was the purpose of the Father and the design of the Son? We answer, Christ died for ‘God’s elect’ ” (p. 72). This is plainly error which limits the scope and value of the sacrifice to the limit of substitution — to the scapegoat. Then he adds on page 73, “Christ died for the elect only.” This is a flat denial of the Word of God.