Is Christ’s Atonement Irrational?
I’ve been writing about the top ten reasons why people are not Christians as the direct result of a man I met who said, “I want to talk about the reasons I will not embrace the Christian worldview.”
Another reason this gentleman says he is not a believer (and why, vicariously, a lot of other people say they are not believers) is that he finds the idea of humankind being tainted by one man’s sin, and then redeemed by another man, Jesus Christ, irrational. This is not just wrong, in his view; it is irrational. To that I would respond, if one does not like being represented by the first man, Adam, because the idea of representation appears unfair, then perhaps that same person, in the interests of fairness, does not want to be represented by the second man, Jesus Christ.
There’s nothing unfair about this. We fall in one man and we’ve ratified that fall. Every one of us, in the quietness of our own room, knows that we are sinners in need of a Savior. No one does right. The heart is desperately wicked. Therefore, we cannot be reconciled to an altogether loving and great God without the mediation of Jesus Christ, Who suffered more than any man, suffered more than the cumulative sufferings of all of mankind, so that we could be redeemed.
I sometimes feel as though we have diminished God and elevated man, and do not see the chasm of sin that separates one from the other. Sometimes we fail to recognize that God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son, and that Son was willing, as the one who spoke and the universe leaped into existence, to lie prostrate in the pool of His own blood before His creation so that we might be reconciled to Him for time and for eternity. Such love, perhaps, is irrational to our way of thinking, but that is how much God loved us. He didn’t need us. The Godhead was fulfilled within itself and yet He loved us enough to reconcile us to Him for time and for eternity. That is inexplicable, but not irrational.